}?32 
C2  T3 


SERIES  XL  NO.  2 


JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

IN 

Historical  and  Political  Science 

Under  tht  Direction  of  the 

Departments  of  History,  Political  Economy,  and 
Political  Science 


THE  CANADIAN  RECIPROCITY  TREATY 

OF  18^4 


BY 

CHARLES  C.  TANSILL,  PH.D. 

Professor  of  American  History,  American  University, 

Washington,  D.  C. 


BALTIMORE 

THE  JOHNS   HOPKINS  PRESS 

193a 


THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS  OF   BALTIMORE. 


American  Toomal  of  MathematlcB.  Edited  by  Fbank  MorLet,  A.  Cohb^,  Assistant  EditOrt 
with  the  oodperation  of  Cbaslottb  A.  Bcott,  A.  B.  Coblb  and  other  mathematicians. 
Quarterly.  Svo.  Vdume  XLIV  in  progress.  $6  per  volume.  (Foreign  postage,  fifty 
cents.) 

American  Journal  of  Philology.  Edited  by  C.  W.  E.  Millkr  with  the  cooperation  of  M . 
BLOOMFirLD  H.  CoLLiM,  T.  Fbane,  W.  p.  Mcstabd,  D.  M.  Robinson.  Quarterly. 
8vo.     Volume     XLIII  in  progress.     $5  per  volume.     (Foreign  postage,  fifty  cents.) 

American  Journal  of  Psychiatry.  E.  N.  Brush,  J.  M.  Mosher,  C.  M.  Campbell,  C.  K. 
Clabkb  and  A.  M.  Barrett,  Editors.  Quarterly.  8vo.  Volume  II  in  progress.  $5  per 
volume.     (Foreign  postage,  fifty  cents.) 

BeitrSge  zur  Assyriologie  und  semltiscben  Sprachwissenschaft.  Paul  Hattpt  and  Fribdbicb 
Dbutzbcb,  Editors.     Volume  X  in  progress. 

Besperla.  Hermann  Collttb,  Henbt  Wood  and  Jambs  W.  Bright,  Editors.  8vo.  Seven- 
teen numbers  have  appealed. 

Johns  Hoi)kins  Hospital  Bulletin.  Monthly.  4to.  Volume  XXXIII  in  progress.  $4  p^r 
year.     (Foreign  postage,  fifty  cents.) 

Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Reports.    8vo.    Volume  XXI  in  progress.     S9  per  volume.     (Foreign 

postage,  fifty  cents.) 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Circular,  including  the  President's  Report,  Annual  Register,  and 

Medical  Department  Catalogue.     Seven  times  a  year.    8vo.     $1  per  year. 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  on  Education.  8vo.  Edited  by  E.  F.  Buchneb.  Five 
numbers  have  appeared. 

The  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Geology.  Edited  by  E.  B.  Mathbwb.  8vo. 
Three  numbers  have  been  published. 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science.  Under  the  direction 
of  the  Departments  of  History,  Political  Economy,  and  Political  Science.  8vo.  Volume 
XL  in  progress.     $5  per  volume. 

Modem  Language  Notes.  J.  W.  Bright,  Editor-in-Chief,  G.  Gruenbaum,  W.  Kubrelmbtbb 
and  H.  C.  Lancaster.  Eight  times  yearly.  8vo.  Volume  XXXVII  in  progress.  $5  per 
volume.     (Foreign  postage,  fifty  cents.) 

Reports  of  the  Maryland  Geological  Survey.    E.  B.  Mathews,  Editor. 

Reprint  of  Economic  Tracts.  J.  H.  Hollander,  Editor.  Fourth  series  in  preparation.      $2.00 . 

Terrestrial  Magnetism  and  Atmospheric  Electricity.  L.  A.  Bauer,  Editor.  Quarterly.  8vo. 
Vol.  XXVII  in  progress.     $3.50  per  volume.     (Foreign  postage,  25  cents.) 


Studies  in  Homob  of  PBorEssoR  Gilderslebve.    527  pp.    8vo.     $6. 

Studies  in  Honor  OF  A.  Marshall  Elliott.    Two  volumes.     8vo.    450  and  334  pp.     $7.50. 

The  Hague  Peace  Conferences  op  1899  and  1907.    By  James  Brown  Scott.    Vol.  I,  The 
Conferences,  887  pp.;  Vol.  II,  Documents,  648  pp.    8vo.     $7. 

The  Eclogues  of  Baptista  Mantuanus.    By  W.  P.  Mustard.     156  pp.    8vo.     $1.60. 

The  Piscatory  Eclogues  of  Jacopo  Sannazaro.    By  W.  P.  Mustard.    94  pp.     8vo.     $1.25. 

Diplomatic  Negotiations  of  American  Naval  Officers,  1778-1883.    By  C.  O.  PauUin. 
380  pp.     12mo.     $2.25. 

Four  Phases  of  American  Development — Federalism,  Democracj/,  Imperialitm,  Expannon. 
By  J.  B.  Moore.    218  pp.     12mo.     $1.50. 

The  Diplomacy  of  the  War  op  1812.     By  F.  A.  Updyke.    604  pp.     12mo.     $2.73. 

Eably  Diplomatic  Relations  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico.    By  W.   R. 
Manning.    418  pp.     12mo.     $2.60. 

The  West  Florida  Controversy,  1798-1813.    By  I.  J.  Cox.     710  pp.     12mo.     $3. 

An  Outline  of  Psychobiology.    By  Knight  .Dunlap.     145  pp.    84  outs.     Royal    8vo.. 
$2.60. 

The  Creed  of  the  Old  South.    By  B.  L.  Gildersleeve.     128  pp.    Crown  8vo.     $1.25. 

Eably  Diplomatic  Relations  between  the  United  States  and  Japan;  1853-1865.     By 
Payson  J.  Treat.    468  pp.     12mo.     $2.75. 

The  Life  and  Stories  of  the  Jaina  Savipr  Parcvanatha.     By  Maurice  Bloomfield.    266 
pp.    8vo.     $3. 

FoBBiGN  Rights  and  Interests  in  China.    By  W.  W.  Willoughby.     614  pp.     8vo.     $7.6Q, 

China  at  the  Conference.    By  W.  W.  Willoughby.    435  pp.     8vo.     $3.0Q. 

A  complete  list  of  publications  sent  on  request. 


THE  CANADIAN  RECIPROCITY  TREATY  OF  1854 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/canadianreciprocOOtansiala 


SERIES  XL  NO. 


JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

IN 

Historical  and  Political  Science 

Under  the  Direction  of  the 

Departments  of  History,  Political  Economy,  and 
Political  Science 


THE  CANADIAN  RECIPROCITY  TREATY 

OF  185^4 


BY 

CHARLES  C.  TANSILL,  PH.D. 

Professor  of  American  History,  American  University, 

Washington,   D.  C. 


BALTIMORE 

THE  JOHNS   HOPKINS   PRESS 

1933 


Copyright  1922  by 
THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 


THt  NtW  BRA  PMINTINa  OOMPAMV 
UtNCMTCII,  PA. 


THE  LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

SANTA  BARBARA 


CONTENTS 

Page 

Preface  vii 

Chapter      I.     The  Repeal  of  the  English  Corn  Laws 

and  Canadian  Business  Depression ...  9 

Chapter  II.  The  Beginnings  of  the  Reciprocity  Move- 
ment    17 

Chapter  III.     The  Conclusion  of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  54 

Appendices  82 


PREFACE 


The  present  study  is  the  development  of  a  paper  presented 
in  the  American  Historical  Seminary,  Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity, in  the  spring  of  1918,  and  it  will  constitute  one  of  the 
chapters  in  the  author's  forthcoming  Life  of  William  Learned 
Marcy.  It  was  at  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  John  H.  Latane 
that  the  present  writer  undertook  to  write  a  comprehensive 
biography  of  William  L.  Marcy,  one  of  America's  great  sec- 
retaries of  state,  and  one  whose  influence  upon  American 
foreign  policy  has  not  been  fully  appreciated. 

The  public  archives  in  Canada  and  in  the  United  States 
have  been  carefully  examined,  and  it  is  the  author's  belief 
that  this  monograph  on  the  Canadian  Reciprocity  Treaty  of 
1854  is  the  first  serious  attempt  to  present  this  important 
subject  from  a  close  study  of  the  original  sources. 

The  author  is  particularly  indebted  to  Dr.  John  H.  Latane, 
under  whose  inspiration  this  monograph  was  started,  and  to 
whose  suggestive  criticism  it  owes  any  merits  that  it  pos- 
sesses, and  to  Professor  Charles  S.  Sperry  and  Mrs.  Edith 
Marcy  Sperry,  of  Boulder,  Colorado,  who  were  kind  enough 
to  give  me  access  to  the  Marcy  manuscripts.  I  wish  also  to 
express  my  indebtedness  to  Dr.  John  M.  Vincent,  Hon.  Ar- 
thur G.  Doughty,  Dr.  Adam  Shortt,  Dr.  John  C.  Fitzpatrick, 
Hon.  William  A.  Ashbrook,  and  to  my  wife,  Helen  C. 
Tansill. 

Charles  C.  Tansill 


vu 


THE  CANADIAN  RECIPROCITY  TREATY 
OF  18^4 


CHAPTER  I 

The  Repeal  of  the  English  Corn  Laws  and  Canadian 
Business  Depression 

The  Reciprocity  Treaty  concluded  between  the  United 
States  and  British  North  America  was  the  result  of  some 
eight  years'  continuous  agitation  on  the  part  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  Canada.  To  the  colonial  officials  it  appeared  as  the 
means  of  escaping  impending  economic  ruin,  and  from  the 
moment  of  the  repeal  of  the  Com  Laws  in  1846,  they  made 
systematic  efforts  to  induce  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  to  enter  into  some  sort  of  reciprocal  arrangement 
whereby  the  raw  materials  of  each  country  would  be  ad- 
mitted within  the  boundaries  of  the  other  free  of  duty.  The 
economic  organization  of  Canada  at  this  time  made  the  ques- 
tion of  a  reciprocal  arrangement  with  the  United  States 
doubly  important. 

In  1817,  the  construction  of  the  Erie  Canal  was  begun, 
and  this  seemed  to  fire  the  imaginations  of  Canadian  en- 
trepreneurs with  regard  to  the  possibilities  of  Canadian  in- 
land waterways.  Work  was  immediately  started  on  several 
projects,  and  within  a  few  years  a  series  of  short  canals  along 
the  St.  Lawrence  River  was  open  to  navigation.  The  La- 
chine  Canal  admitted  shipping  as  early  as  1825 ;  the  Welland 
Canal  in  1833  5  the  Cornwall  Canal  in  1843 ;  the  Beauhamois 
Canal  in  1845  >  ^"^  the  Williamsburg  Canals  in  1847.^ 

1  Thomas  C.  Keef er,  Eighty  Years'  Progress  of  British  North 
America  (Toronto,  1863),  pp.  166-174;  M.  J.  Patton,  Canada  and  Its 
Provinces  (Toronto,  1914),  vol.  x,  pp.  512-514. 


10  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1854  j^IQO 

These  canals,  it  was  believed,  would  enable  the  St.  Law- 
rence River  to  be  the  great  channel  for  the  forwarding  to 
Europe  of  the  products  of  the  interior  of  the  continent,  and 
this  confidence  of  the  Canadians  as  to  the  superiority  of 
their  route  over  that  of  the  Erie  Canal  became  quite  wide- 
spread. According  to  the  author  of  a  pamphlet  published 
at  St.  Catherines  in  1832:  "We  possess  in  Canada  an  un- 
doubted and  preeminent  superiority  in  controlling  and  di- 
recting the  productive  industry  of  the  Western  territories. 
.  .  .  The  master  key  of  the  Lake  region  is  not  theirs."  ^ 

By  the  year  1846,  the  short  canals  along  the  St.  Lawrence 
River  were  mostly  completed,  and  the  prospect  of  diverting 
a  large  portion  of  the  Erie  Canal  trade  seemed  particularly 
bright.  In  1845,  the  quantity  of  produce  brought  by  the  St. 
Lawrence  to  the  city  of  Montreal  was  given  as  follows: 
"  Pork,  6,109  barrels ;  beef,  723  barrels ;  lard,  460  kegs ;  flour, 
590,305  barrels ;  wheat,  450,209  bushels ;  other  grain,  40,787 
bushels."  The  produce  brought  to  New  York  by  the  Erie 
Canal  was  estimated  at:  "Pork,  63,640  barrels;  beef,  7,699 
barrels;  lard,  3,064,800  pounds;  flour,  2,517,250  barrels; 
wheat,  1,620,033  bushels;  corn,  35,803  bushels."'  The 
enormously  greater  volume  of  trade  carried  by  the  Erie 
Canal  was  a  subject  of  active  interest  to  the  Canadians,  who 
now  believed  that  the  superiority  of  their  route  was  about  to 
become  manifest. 

In  this  connection  the  Free  Trade  Association  of  Mon- 
treal published  a  circular  which  confidently  predicted  the 
ultimate  diversion  of  the  greater  portion  of  the  Erie  Canal 
traffic  to  the  Montreal  route.  This  was.  inevitable  "  because 
the  cheapest  conveyance  to  the  sea-board  and  to  the  manu- 
facturing districts  of  New  England  must  win  the  Prize.  .  .  . 
The  cheapening  of  the  means  of  transit  is  the  great  object  to 
be  obtained ;  and  our  best  practical  authorities  are  of  opin- 


2  Quoted  in  D.  A.  MacGibbon,  Railway  Rates  and  the  Canadian 
Railway  Commission  (N.  Y.,  1917),  p.  5. 

»R.  H.  Bonnycastle,  Canada  and  the  Canadians  in  1846  (London, 
1846),  pp.  28^290. 


191  j|  REPEAL  OF  ENGLISH   CORN   LAWS  II 

ion  that  the  St.  Lawrence  will  be  made  the  cheapest  route 
as  soon  as  our  chain  of  inland  improvements  is  rendered 
complete.  .  .  .  This  picture  may  appear  too  flattering  to  those 
who  have  not  investigated  the  subject;  but  to  such  we  say, 
examination  will  convince  them  that  with  the  St.  Lawrence 
as  a  highway,  and  Portland  as  an  outlet  to  the  sea,  we  shall 
be  enabled,  successfully,  to  struggle  for  the  mighty  trade  of 
the  West,  and  bid  defiance  to  competition  on  the  more  arti- 
ficial route  of  the  Erie  Canal."  * 

The  authors  of  this  interesting  circular,  however,  did  not 
keep  in  mind  the  influence  of  two  important  factors  with 
regard  to  the  eventual  superiority  of  the  St.  Lawrence  route. 
The  New  York  route  was  free  from  the  difficulties  and 
dangers  of  navigation  that  were  encountered  in  the  St.  Law- 
rence and  in  the  Gulf,  and  thus  had  the  advantage  of  lower 
transatlantic  freight  and  insurance  rates.^  Also,  the  rapidly 
increasing  volume  of  trade  along  the  St.  Lawrence  route  was 
due  in  no  small  measure  to  the  adventitious  aid  derived  from 
the  British  Navigation  Laws.  The  repeal  of  colonial  prefer- 
ence duties  would  deal  a  severe  blow  to  Canadian  export 
trade,  and  particularly  to  that  export  trade  that  had  sprung 
up  since  the  Parliamentary  regulation  of  1843,  which  ad- 
mitted all  wheat  cleared  from  Canadian  ports,  whether  grown 
in  Canada  or  in  the  United  States,  at  a  fixed  duty  of  one 
shilling  a  quarter.^ 

This  practice  of  colonial  preference  duties  dates  as  far 
back  as  the  "  Old  Subsidy  "  of  1660,  which  fixed  such  low 
duties  on  certain  imported  colonial  products  as  to  give  them 
a  virtual  monopoly  of  the  English  market.^  The  preference 
given  to  these  so-called  "  enumerated  articles "  was   from 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  290-292. 

'  C.  Donlevy,  The  St.  Lawrence  as  a  Great  Commercial  Highway, 
p.  23 ;  MacGibbon,  p.  19. 

8  Bernard  Holland,  The  Fall  of  Protection  (London,  1913),  pp. 
120-122. 

^G.  L.  Beer,  Origins  of  the  British  Colonial  System  (N.  Y., 
1908),  chap,  iv;  Old  Colonial  System  (N.  Y.,  1912),  vol.  i,  pp.  128- 
138. 


12  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1854  [[192 

time  to  time  extended  to  other  colonial  commodities,  so  that 
by  1840  there  were  more  than  eighty  articles  of  commerce 
thus  protected.*  In  the  Peel  tariff  of  1842,  the  principle  of 
colonial  preference  was  even  further  extended.  The  tariff 
schedule  of  that  year  contained  some  825  items,  and  upon  no 
less  than  375  of  them  differential  duties  were  levied  in  favor 
of  colonial  products.® 

In  1844,  however,  there  was  a  distinct  relaxation  of  the 
preferential  system.  By  the  customs  act  of  that  year  the 
duties  on  foreign  wool  were  repealed  and  the  preference 
hitherto  allowed  colonial  coffee  was  greatly  reduced.^"  But 
it  was  not  until  1846  that  the  preferential  system  received 
the  severe  shock  that  foretold  its  destruction.  By  the  act  of 
1828,  a  duty  of  one  shilling  per  quarter  was  imposed  on  im- 
ports of  foreign  cereals  when  the  price  stood  at  73  shillings 
or  above,  and  this  duty  rose  as  the  price  of  grain  fell,  thus 
reaching  34s.  8d,  when  the  price  sank  to  52s. 

Colonial  grain,  however,  was  given  a  special  preference 
under  the  act  of  1828,  a  duty  of  5s.  per  quarter  being  im- 
posed when  the  price  fell  below  67s.,  and  only  the  purely 
nominal  charge  of  6d.  per  quarter  when  the  price  rose  above 
67s.  Thus  when  the  price  of  grain  in  England  stood  at 
57s.,  Canadian  grain  could  freely  enter  at  but  5s.,  while 
American  or  foreign  grain  was  really  excluded  by  the  exces- 
sive duty  of  34s.  8d,^* 

Peel's  com  law  of  1842  revised  the  import  duties  on  im- 
ported grain  so  that  thereafter  colonial  wheat  was  admitted 
at  uniform  duties  of  is.  when  prices  stood  at,  or  above,  58s., 
and  5s.  when  prices  fell  below  55s.  On  foreign  grain  the 
duties  were  revised  downwards.     When  the  price  of  grain 

•R.  L.  Schuyler,  "British  Imperial  Preference,"  in  Political 
Science  Quarterly,  Sept.  1917,  p.  432. 

®  Holland,  pp.  104-105 ;  Hansard,  third  series,  vol.  63,  pp.  513,  S4I1 
542,  549;  5  and  6  Victoria,  c.  47. 

^"7  and  8  Victoria,  c.  :6;  Hansard,  third  series,  vol.  74,  pp.  1271, 
1273,  1274,  1279,  1280. 

11 9  Geo.  IV,  c.  60;  Holland,  pp.  18-19;  J.  S.  Nicholson,  History 
of  the  English  Corn  Laws,  pp.  135-136. 


193]  REPEAL  OF  ENGLISH  CORN  LAWS  I3 

varied  from  73s.  to  51s.,  then  a  sliding  scale  of  duties,  rang- 
ing from  IS.  to  19s.,  should  apply;  when  the  price  fell  below 
51s.,  the  duty  remained  constant  at  20s.^^ 

In  the  following  year,  1843,  an  additional  preference  was 
granted  to  Canadian  wheat  and  flour.  Ever  since  1831, 
wheat  grown  in  the  United  States  had  been  permitted  to 
enter  Canada  free  of  duty/^  and  this  practice  had  led  to  the 
importation  of  considerable  quantities  of  American  wheat, 
which  was  then  ground  into  flour  and  shipped  to  England 
to  be  admitted  at  the  colonial  preferential  duty. 

Under  the  terms  of  the  law  of  1843,  the  Canadian  Par- 
liament agreed  to  pass  a  measure  whereby  a  duty  of  3s.  a 
quarter  would  be  levied  on  all  American  grain  crossing  their 
frontier.  The  British  Government  then  promised  that  all 
grain  cleared  from  Canadian  ports,  whether  native  grown 
or  imported  from  the  United  States,  would  be  admitted  at  a 
fixed  duty  of  is,  instead  of  at  the  existing  rate  which,  ac- 
cording to  English  prices,  varied  from  is.  to  5s.^* 

The  main  purpose  of  this  act  of  1843  was  further  to  en- 
courage the  milling  interests  of  Canada,  and  to  favor  the 
elaborate  canal  system  that  was  rapidly  nearing  completion. 
In  both  these  particulars  the  measure  was  a  pronounced 
success.  Even  before  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  1843,  ^^^ 
traffic  upon  the  St,  Lawrence  was  doubling  every  four 
years,^"  and,  according  to  a  competent  authority,  "  there  is 
no  question  that  the  waterway  system  of  Canada  at  this  time 
procured  a  remarkable  degree  of  prosperity  to  a  large  and 
important  element  in  commercial  life  of  the  country."  ^^ 
The  milling  interest  received  a  similar  favorable  impetus. 
From  October  10,  1843,  to  January  5,  1846,  1,492,260  hun- 
dred-weight of  wheat  flour  manufactured  in  Canada  was 
imported  into  the  United  Kingdom,  and  this  figure  is  espe- 

12  5  Victoria,  c.  14,  April  29,  1842 ;  Schuyler,  pp,  441-442 ;  Adam 
Shortt,  Canada  and  Its  Provinces,  vol.  v,  pp.  190-193, 

^"Holland,  pp.  118-119;  Shortt,  vol,  v,  pp,  195-197, 

1*  Holland,  pp.  120-121 ;  Hansard,  third  series,  vol,  67,  pp.  1319- 
1320;  Nicholson,  pp.  136-137, 

*5  J.  Sheridan  Hogan,  Canada,  p,  24. 

^"  MacGibbon,  p.  13. 


14  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY    TREATY    OF    1854  [^194 

cially  significant  when  we  consider  that  the  imports  of  flour 
from  foreign  countries  and  from  other  British  colonies  dur- 
ing the  period  April  29,  1842,  to  January  5,  1846,  amounted 
only  to  1,362,517  hundred-weight.^" 

But  these  benefits  were  of  short  duration.  In  the  autumn 
of  1845  it  became  only  too  evident  that  the  destruction  of  the 
potato  crop  in  Ireland  meant  impending  famine.  Peel,  a 
deeply  religious  man,  interpreted  the  Irish  misfortune 
to  be  an  expression  of  divine  displeasure  against  the  Com 
Laws,  and  this  fact,  added  to  his  growing  conviction  in  favor 
of  their  repeal,  meant  the  overthrow  of  the  whole  protective 
system.^^  On  January  27,  1846,  Peel  began  his  notable  fight 
for  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws,  and  on  June  26th  of  that  year 
a  bill  embodying  his  proposal  became  law.^*  Colonial  grain 
was  to  receive  a  preference  until  February,  1849,  after  which 
date  all  importations  of  oats,  barley,  and  wheat,  wherever 
grown,  were  to  pay  only  a  nominal  duty  of  is.  per  quarter.^" 

But  this  was  not  all.  On  the  same  day  a  tariff  act  which 
materially  reduced  the  preferential  duties  on  colonial  timber 
received  the  royal  assent.  Since  the  period  of  the  Napole- 
onic Wars  the  preferential  duties  in  favor  of  colonial  timber 
had  been  high.  In  1813,  foreign  timber  paid  a  duty  of  65s. 
per  load  (50  cubic  feet),  but  in  182 1,  this  impost  was  lowered 
to  55s.,  while  colonial  timber  paid  a  mere  los.  per  load.^^ 
Under  the  tariff  of  1842,  the  duty  on  foreign  timber  was 
reduced  to  25s.,  and  at  the  same  time  the  duty  on  colonial 
timber  was  practically  abolished — a  small  charge  of  is.  per 
load  being  exacted.^^ 

This  differential  duty  of  24s.  in  favor  of  colonial  timber 
was  lowered  to  one  of  14s.  by  the  tariff  of  1846,  and  in  the 

"  Parliamentary  Papers,  sess.  1846,  vol.  44,  No.  130,  p.  9. 

^8 Holland,  pp.  243-246;  Nichol'son  (N.  Y.,  1904),  pp.  131-135; 
W.  Cunningham,  The  Rise  and  Decline  of  the  Free  Trade  Move- 
ment (N.  Y.,  1912),  pp.  60-66. 

i»9  and  10  Victoria,  c.  22;  Chas.  S.  Parker,  Sir  Robert  Peel 
(London,  1899),  PP-  S83-609;  George  M.  Trevelyan,  Life  of  John 
Bright  (N.  Y.,  1913),  chaps,  iv,  v,  vi. 

20  Holland,  pp.  256-258 ;  Shortt,  vol.  v,  pp.  214-215. 

21  Schuyler,  p.  448. 

"  5  and  6  Victoria,  c.  47,  table  a,  class  V. 


195]]  REPEAL  OF  ENGLISH   CORN   LAWS  ,15 

House  of  Commons  it  was  frankly  predicted  that  such  a 
radical  reduction  of  colonial  preference  would  mean  the  de- 
struction of  the  Canadian  timber  trade  and  the  annexation 
of  that  province  to  the  United  States.  Mr.  Hinde  "  believed 
that  if  this  measure  were  carried  ...  we  might  safely  make 
a  present  of  Canada  to  the  United  States  at  once,"  and  this 
belief  was  widely  shared  both  in  England  and  in  Canada.^' 

In  Canada,  the  abolition  of  colonial  preference  created 
"consternation  and  alarm." 2*  On  January  28,  1846,  on  the 
day  after  Peel  began  his  struggle  for  the  repeal  of  the  Corn 
Laws,  the  Earl  of  Cathcart,  Governor-General  of  Canada, 
wrote  a  strong  letter  to  Gladstone,  then  Secretary  of  State 
for  the  Colonies.  The  successful  operation  of  the  newly 
completed  canal  system,  he  observed,  depended  upon  the  con- 
tinuance of  colonial  preference.  The  American  route  via 
the  Erie  Canal  was  shorter  and  not  closed  by  ice  for  such 
a  long  period.  Some  preference  in  favor  of  grain  shipped 
by  way  of  the  St.  Lawrence  was  therefore  necessary,  lest 
the  Canadian  canals  prove  a  failure,  and  the  debt  incurred 
in  their  construction  be  repudiated-^"* 

Gladstone,  in  his  reply  of  March  3,  1846,  deprecated  the 
possible  injury  that  would  be  inflicted  upon  Canadian  trade 
by  the  repeal  of  colonial  preference,  but  he  emphasized  the 
fact  that  cheap  food  was  a  prime  necessity  for  the  people  of 
the  United  Kingdom,  and  for  this  reason  a  gradual  reduc- 
tion of  the  preferential  duties  was  imperative.  There  would 
still  be  a  duty  of  15s.  a  load  upon  foreign  timber,  and  Glad- 
stone assured  the  Governor-General  that  not  only  would  the 
reduction  of  the  preference  on  timber  fail  to  check  Canadian 
exports,  but  he  was  "  sanguine  that  the  trade  nevertheless 
will  extend  itself."  He  also  believed  that  the  corn  and  flour 
trade  between  Canada  and  the  United  Kingdom  would  not 

2»  Hansard,  third  series,  vol.  84,  pp.  1290-1291,  1342. 

2*  Ibid.,  p.  1321 ;  Edward  Porritt,  Sixty  Years  of  Protection  in  Can- 
ada, 1846-1907  (London,  1908),  pp.  45-47- 

25  Canadian  Archives,  Series  G,  Governors-General  Letter  Books, 
406. 


l6  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY   OF    1854  [196 

suffer  any  serious  depression  because  of  American  competi- 
tion, and  he  hoped  that  there  might  be  a  reduction  in  the 
cost  of  forwarding  grain  from  the  interior  to  the  St.  Law- 
rence ports.^^ 

With  the  Canadian  canals  already  pushed  to  the  limit  in 
a  spirited  competition  with  the  superior  American  route,  it 
took  the  sanguine  temperament  of  the  colonial  secretary  to 
conceive  that  they  could  lower  transportation  charges  with  a 
decreasing  volume  of  trade.  Besides,  Mr.  Gladstone  seemed 
unaware  of  the  fact  that  with  regard  to  the  grain  trade  it 
was  not  America  but  Europe  that  Canada  had  to  fear. 

In  February,  1846,  the  full  details  of  Peel's  program  for 
the  repeal  of  the  Com  Laws  became  known  in  Canada.  The 
lumbermen,  merchants,  millers,  and  shipping  men  were  par- 
ticularly affected  by  the  new  measures,  and,  inasmuch  as 
they  dominated  the  boards  of  trade  in  the  important  ports 
of  the  colony,  it  was  but  natural  that  these  bodies  should 
send  prompt  protests  to  the  colonial  secretary  against  the  re- 
laxation of  the  colonial  system.^^  On  February  25,  1846, 
the  Board  of  Trade  of  Quebec  drew  up  its  memorial  of  pro- 
test, and  one  month  later  the  Board  of  Trade  of  Montreal 
took  similar  action.  At  Toronto  the  members  of  the  Board 
were  especially  interested  in  the  fate  of  the  canal  system 
after  the  repeal  of  colonial  preference,  and  Mr.  George  S. 
Workman,  President  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  prophesied  that 
"now  that  the  differential  duty  in  our  favor  in  the  mother 
country  is  about  to  be  removed  we  shall  find  that  the  trade 
in  Western  States*  produce  will  leave  our  waters  altogether." 
Indeed,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  millions  had  been  spent  in 
the  construction  of  the  canal  system  and  that  the  decreasing 
volume  of  trade  would  bring  ever  smaller  transportation 
tolls,  it  was  no  more  than  plain  justice  for  the  mother 
country  to  make  to  Canada  "  a  present  of  the  public 
works."  ^' 

26  Ibid.,  123. 

27  Porritt,  pp.  54-57. 

28  Hansard,  third  series,  vol.  86,  pp.  555-556. 


CHAPTER  II 
Beginnings  of  the  Reciprocity  Movement 

On  May  12,  1846,  the  Canadian  House  of  Assembly  agreed 
to  an  address  to  the  Queen  in  which  Her  Majesty  was  re- 
quested to  begin  negotiations  for  reciprocal  arrangements 
between  Canada  and  the  United  States,  and  the  movement 
which  ended  in  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  of  1854  was  started.' 

On  June  3,  1846,  Gladstone  replied  to  Cathcart's  despatch 
of  May  13th,  which  had  enclosed  the  "  Address  of  the  Cana- 
dian Parliament,"  and  after  indicating  to  the  Grovemor-Gen- 
eral  that  the  case  of  Australia  showed  clearly  that  colonial 
prosperity  did  not  depend  upon  a  protective  system,  he  re- 
marked that  the  question  of  a  reciprocity  treaty  between 
Canada  and  the  United  States  had  been  carefully  considered, 
and  that  "Her  Majesty  will  readily  cause  directions  to  be 
given  to  her  minister  at  Washington  to  avail  himself  of  the 
earliest  suitable  opportunity  to  press  the  important  subject 
on  the  notice  of  the  Government."  ^ 

This  promise  of  the  British  Government  was  strictly  ad- 
hered to,  and  on  June  18,  1846,  Lord  Aberdeen  sent  instruc- 
tions to  Mr.  Pakenham,  at  Washington,  to  "  bring  this  mat- 
ter under  the  consideration  of  the  United  States  Government 
whenever  you  may  consider  the  time  favorable  for  pressing 
on  their  attention  a  subject  of  such  deep  interest  and  im- 
portance both  to  Canada  and  to  the  United  States."' 

These  instructions  to  Pakenham  reached  Washington  on 
July  8,  1846,  five  days  after  the  passage  of  the  Walker  tariff 
bill  by  the  House  of  Representatives.*    This  measure  was 

1  Canadian  Archives,  Series  G,  125. 

2  Ibid.,  125. 

'Gladstone  to  Cathcart,  June  27,  1846,  Canadian  Archives,  Series 
G,  125,  No.  94. 

♦Edward  Stanwood,  American  Tariff  Controversies  in  the  19th 
Century  (Boston,  1904).  pp.  77-81. 

17 


l8  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY    TREATY    OF    1854  [^198 

then  sent  to  the  Senate  where  a  protracted  and  acrimonious 
debate  ensued.  Pakenham  was  well  aware  of  the  strong 
opposition  of  the  Whigs  to  the  Walker  tariff  bill,  and  he 
therefore  believed  that  the  moment  was  not  propitious  for 
the  proposal  of  a  reciprocity  arrangement  between  Canada 
and  the  United  States.  If  such  a  measure  were  introduced 
he  was  afraid  that  it  might  **  awaken  enough  hostility  "  to 
defeat  the  pending  tariff  bill.  If  the  bill  was  passed  by  both 
Houses  of  Congress  then  there  was  some  hope  for  a  reci- 
procity convention,  but  if  the  bill  should  be  rejected  it  would 
"  be  evident  that  no  proposition  which  I  might  have  made  in 
pursuance  of  your  Lordship's  late  instructions  .  .  .  would 
have  had  a  chance  of  succeeding  before  Congress."® 

The  Walker  Tariff  Bill  passed  the  Senate  on  July  28th, 
with  a  single  amendment  which  was  promptly  concurred  in 
by  the  House  and  on  July  30,  1846,  the  President  signed  the 
act.  This  gave  Pakenham  some  hope  that  a  reciprocity 
treaty  between  Canada  and  the  United  States  might  be  ne- 
gotiated; so,  in  the  autumn  of  that  year,  he  journeyed  to 
Canada  to  ascertain  the  sentiment  there  and  to  procure  a  list 
"of  the  particular  articles  which  by  the  respective  Tariffs 
were  subjected  to  a  higher  rate  of  duty  on  importation  into 
the  United  States  from  Canada  than  on  importation  into 
Canada  from  the  United  States."  This  list  was  prepared 
by  the  Canadian  Inspector-General  of  Public  Accounts,  and 
finally  reached  Pakenham  at  Washington  on  December  20, 
1846. 

Pakenham  lost  no  time  in  presenting  Mr.  Robert  Walker, 
then  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  with  a  copy  of  this  list  to- 
gether with  a  memorandum  expressing  the  desire  of  Her 
Majesty's  Government  to  effect  a  reciprocity  agreement  be- 
tween British  North  America  and  the  United  States.  Copies 
of  this  memorandum  were  also  placed  in  the  hands  of  Sen- 
ator Dix  of  New  York,  who  was  known  to  be  favorable  to 

"Grey  to  Cathcart,  enclosing  Pakenham's  letter  of  July  13,  1846, 
to  the  Colonial  Secretary,  Canadian  Archives,  Series  G,  125,  No.  14. 


1993       BEGINNINGS   OF  THE  RECIPROCITY   MOVEMENT  I9 

some  measure  of  this  nature.  Walker  himself  professed  to 
be  in  favor  of  reciprocity  with  Canada,  but  "  such  was  the 
press  of  business  during  the  late  short  session,  occasioned 
principally  by  the  war  with  Mexico,"  that  nothing  was  done." 

As  soon  as  Congress  convened  in  December,  1847,  the 
British  minister  again  pressed  the  matter  upon  the  attention 
of  Mr.  Walker,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  His  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  reciprocity  were  soon  fortified  by  the  repre- 
sentations of  Mr.  Hamilton  Merritt,  one  of  the  most  influ- 
ential men  in  the  Niagara  District,  and  an  authority  with 
regard  to  the  trade  relations  between  Canada  and  the  United 
States.  Lord  Elgin,  the  new  Governor-General  of  Canada, 
had  been  quick  to  reahze  the  abilities  of  Mr.  Merritt,  and  in 
the  early  part  of  1848  Merritt  was  sent  to  the  United  States 
to  convince  or  persuade  both  houses  of  Congress  to  agree 
to  a  reciprocity  convention.  Immediately  upon  the  arrival 
of  Mr.  Merritt  in  Washington,  Mr.  Crampton,  the  British 
minister,  introduced  him  to  Buchanan,  Mr.  Walker,  and  the 
"leading  members  of  Congress  whose  support  in  carrying 
through  the  measure  we  judged  to  be  most  important." 

Mr.  Merritt  also  appeared  before  the  Committee  of  Com- 
merce of  both  houses  of  Congress,  and,  according  to  Mr. 
Crampton,  he  succeeded  in  relieving  these  wary  legislators 
of  any  "  apprehensions  "  they  may  have  had  relative  to  the 
ill  effects  that  a  treaty  of  reciprocity  might  have  upon  Amer- 
ican markets."'  Mr.  Joseph  Grinnell,  chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Commerce  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  drew 
up  a  bill  providing  for  the  free  admission  into  the  United 
States  and  Canada  of  articles  that  were  grown  or  produced 
in  the  respective  countries. 

On  April  28,  1848,  Mr.  Grinnell  enclosed  a  copy  of  this 
proposed  bill  in  a  letter  to  Robert  J.  Walker,  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  and  the  Secretary's  advice  upon  this  whole  ques- 
tion of  reciprocity  was  requested.    Mr.  Walker's  reply  of 

•  Grey  to  Elgin,  June  22,  1847,  Canadian  Archives,  Series  G,  128, 
Instructions  No.  91. 
T  Grey  to  Elgin,  June  9,  1848,  Canadian  Archives,  Series  G,  131. 


20  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY   OF    1854  ^200 

May  I,  1848,  was  highly  favorable.  He  believed  that  "very 
great  advantages  would  accrue  to  the  United  States  "  under 
such  an  arrangement,  and  he  predicted  a  great  diversion  of 
Canadian  trade  to  American  channels.  "  Indeed,"  he  ob- 
serves, "  under  such  a  system  as  this  as  the  products  of  Can- 
ada might  increase  from  time  to  time,  nearly  the  whole  sur- 
plus exported  abroad  would  be  carried  upon  our  rivers,  rail- 
roads, and  canals  .  .  .  increasing  our  tonnage  and  invigor- 
ating nearly  every  branch  of  American  industry."  * 

Three  days  later,  May  4,  1848,  Mr.  Grinnell,  from  the 
House  Committee  on  Commerce,  reported  his  bill  for  the 
admission  into  the  United  States  free  of  duty  of  certain 
specified  articles  of  the  "growth  or  production  of  Canada, 
upon  the  condition  that  the  like  articles  of  the  growth  or 
production  of  the  United  States  are  admitted  into  Canada 
free  of  duty."*  After  an  extended  consideration  of  some 
two  months  the  House,  on  July  12th,  passed  the  bill  without 
a  recorded  vote.^"  On  July  20,  1848,  Mr.  Dix,  from  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Commerce,  reported  the  Grinnell  bill 
with  certain  verbal  amendments,  and  asked  for  its  immediate 
consideration.  Upon  the  motion  of  Mr.  Davis  of  Massa- 
chusetts, however,  the  bill  was  laid  upon  the  table  and  no 
further  notice  was  given  to  the  bill  during  that  session. 

On  July  5,  1848,  Lord  Grey,  the  colonial  secretary,  wrote 
to  the  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  for  Trade,  and  re- 
quested advice  as  to  whether  the  Committee  would  permit 
the  Canadian  Parliament  to  regulate  the  colonial  tariff,  so 
as  to  meet  the  reductions  in  the  pending  reciprocity  bill  in 
the  House  of  Representatives.  The  Committee  promptly 
replied  that  inasmuch  as  the  "questions  involved  in  it  bear 
more  upon  the  welfare  of  Canada  than  of  Great  Britain,  they 
recommend  it  to  be  left  entirely  to  the  decision  of  the  Provin- 
cial Legislature."^^ 

*3ist  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  H.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  64,  pp.  ia-13. 
•  Cong.  Globe,  30th  Cong.,  ist  sess.,  May  4,  1848,  p.  723. 
"  Ibid.,  p.  923. 

"  Grey  to  Elgin,  Aug.  10,  1848,  Canadian  Archives,  Series  G,  132. 
No.  303. 


201^'      BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  RECIPROCITY   MOVEMENT  21 

But  the  Grinnell  bill  had  really  a  very  slender  chance  of 
passing  through  both  houses  of  Congress.  On  December 
i8,  1848,  shortly  after  the  opening  of  the  second  session  of 
the  30th  Congress,  Senator  Dix,  of  New  York,  gave  notice 
that  on  the  following  day  he  would  ask  that  the  Senate 
immediately  consider  the  pending  bill  providing  for  reci- 
procity with  Canada.^^  But  the  Senate  was  in  no  hurry  to 
discuss  the  merits  of  the  Grinnell  bill,  so,  on  the  following 
day,  the  motion  of  Mr.  Dix  was  tabled,^'  and  it  was  not 
until  January  8,  1849,  that  the  measure  was  debated  in  the 
Senate.  On  this  occasion,  Mr.  Dix  made  a  strong  appeal 
for  closer  trade  relations  with  Canada.  "  The  bill,"  he  ex- 
plained, "  provides  for  freedom  of  intercourse  and  exchange 
between  the  United  States  and  Canada,  in  relation  to  certain 
enumerated  articles  which  are  the  growth  or  production  of 
either  of  the  two  countries.  .  .  .  The  countries  themselves 
are  not  essentially  different  in  climate  or  soil  at  the  points  of 
contact,  but  as  we  return  from  the  frontier  the  advantage  in 
both  respects  is  on  our  side.  The  provisions  of  the  bill, 
therefore,  are  not  likely  to  violate  the  policy  of  this  Govern- 
ment in  regard  to  our  intercourse  with  foreign  countries 
generally,  while  the  marked  difference  in  the  social  rela- 
tions between  the  two  countries,  which  will  necessarily  re- 
sult from  making  the  terms  of  exchange  equal  as  this  bill 
proposes,  must  be  advantageous  to  both."^* 

Mr.  Dix  was  immediately  answered  by  Mr.  Pearce  of 
Maryland,  who  declared  that  the  admission  of  free  wheat 
into  the  United  States  from  Canada  would  usher  in  a  period 
of  general  free  trade  in  that  article  to  the  great  detriment 
of  American  agriculture.  Many  of  our  treaties  with  foreign 
countries  contained  a  "  most  favored  nation "  clause,  and 
this  would  mean  that  any  concessions  extended  to  Canada, 
in  this  regard,  would  have  to  be  extended  to  all  the  nations 

*'  Cong.  Globe,  30th  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  46. 
"  Ibid,,  p.  62. 
"  Ibid.,  p.  182. 


22  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1 854  [^202 

signatory  to  treaties  containing  this  clause.^*  Other  objec- 
tions raised  against  the  bill  were  that  it  would  confuse  the 
revenue  system  of  the  United  States ;  that  there  was  no  pro- 
vision for  reciprocity  in  manufactures;  and  that  the  bill 
would  mainly  benefit  the  Northern  transportation  agencies.^^ 

On  January  23,  1849,  Senator  Dix  made  his  last  effort  in 
favor  of  the  bill.  He  endeavored  to  quiet  the  fears  of  the 
agricultural  interests  by  stressing  the  fact  that  for  some  years 
past  there  had  been  a  heavy  balance  of  trade  against  British 
North  America.  "Our  entire  imports  from  the  British 
North  American  colonies  in  1845,"  he  observed,  "were  of 
the  value  of  about  two  millions  of  dollars.  Of  this  amount, 
more  than  nine  hundred  thousand  dollars  consisted  of  gold 
and  silver,  and  more  than  eleven  hundred  thousand,  includ- 
ing specie,  were  free  of  duty.  The  remaining  nine  hundred 
thousand  dollars  are  to  be  divided  between  Canada,  Nova 
Scotia,  and  New  Brunswick;  and  from  the  nature  of  the 
articles,  it  is  manifest  that  the  quantity  received  from  Can- 
ada was  but  a  small  portion  of  the  amount.  .  .  .  The  year 
1847  gives  nearly  the  same  aggregate  result. 

"Notwithstanding  this  small  import  from  the  British 
North  American  colonies,  our  commercial  intercourse  with 
them,  ...  is  as  beneficial  for  its  extent  as  that  with  any 
portion  of  the  world.  We  sent  into  them,  in  1847,  products 
of  the  value  of  nearly  eight  millions.  .  .  .  Our  imports  di- 
rectly from  those  colonies,  the  same  year,  were  of  the  value 
of  about  two  millions  and  a  quarter."  ^^ 

But  Mr.  Dix's  arguments  failed  to  convince  a  majority 
of  the  Senate,  so,  for  a  second  time,  the  bill  failed  to  pass 
the  upper  house  of  Congress.  In  the  meantime,  the  Can- 
adian Government  had  not  been  idle.  Late  in  the  session 
of  1846  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  British  House  of  Com- 
mons to  empower  the  Queen  to  give  her  assent  to  acts  of  the 
colonial  legislatures  reducing  or  repealing  protective  duties 

"  Ibid.,  p.  183. 
"Ibid.,  pp.  184-186. 
"  Ibid.,  pp.  327-332. 


203]       BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  RECIPROCITY   MOVEMENT  2$ 

imposed  upon  imports  from  foreign  countries.^'  This  im- 
portant measure  was  hurriedly  pushed  through  Parliament 
in  August,  1846,  in  spite  of  the  dire  predictions  of  some  of 
the  members  that  the  political  connection  between  the  Mother 
country  and  the  colonies  would  not  long  "  survive  commer- 
cial independence."  ^^  "  The  whole  power,"  which  this  act 
conferred  upon  colonial  legislatures,  "was  to  repeal  duties 
already  existing,"  ^^  and  of  this  privilege,  the  Canadian  Par- 
liament promptly  availed  itself  by  the  act  of  July  28,  1847, 
when  the  duties  on  American  manufactures  ^vere  lowered 
from  I2>4  per  cent  to  7^  per  cent,  and  the  duty  on  British 
manufactures  raised  from  5J^  per  cent  to  7^  per  cent.*^ 

This  was  merely  the  first  step  towards  reciprocity  with 
the  United  States,  and  the  Canadian  Grovernment  anxiously 
awaited  the  fate  of  the  Grinnell  bill  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States.  On  December  21,  1848,  two  days  after 
Senator  Dix  had  called  the  bill  up  in  the  Senate,  Lord  Grey 
wrote  an  interesting  despatch  to  Lord  Elgin  with  reference 
to  the  reciprocal  arrangements  between  Canada  and  the 
United  States,  and  he  carefully  stated  the  attitude  of  the 
mother  country.  "Her  Majesty's  Government,"  he  ob- 
serves, "are  prepared  fully  to  approve  and  ratify  a  meas- 
ure with  this  general  object,  should  your  Legislature  con- 
sider it  desirable.  However,  there  should  not  be  differen- 
tial duties  in  favor  of  the  United  States."  As  the  Canadian 
tariff  then  stood,  there  was  a  duty  on  iron  ore  imported 
from  England.  In  the  event  of  a  reciprocity  arrangement 
with  the  United  States  under  the  terms  of  which  American 
iron  ore  would  be  admitted  free  of  duty,  then  a  similar  con- 
cession would  have  to  be  extended  to  English  ore.  He  fur- 
ther advised  that,  in  order  to  prevent  protests  from  other 
countries,  Canada  should  word  the  law  removing  the  restric- 
tions on  imports  so  "  as  to  make  it  clear  that,  on  its  taking 

!•  Hansard,  third  series,  vol.  87,  p.  1320 ;  vol.  88,  pp.  746-747. 

i»  Ibid.,  vol.  88,  pp.  743-744- 

«» Ibid.,  vol.  88,  p.  683. 

*^  10  and  II  Victoria,  c.  31. 


24  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1 854  []204 

effect,  all  the  articles  to  which  it  relates  will  be  admitted 
duty  free  from  all  countries  whether  the  produce  of  the 
United  States  or  not."  " 

The  failure  of  the  Grinnell  bill  to  pass  the  Senate  was  a 
source  of  deep  disappointment  both  to  the  British  and  to 
the  Canadian  Governments.  On  March  5,  1849,  Crampton 
wrote  to  Palmerston  and  reported  the  failure  of  the  reci- 
procity bill  in  Congress.  He  explained  the  unfavorable 
attitude  evinced  by  the  Senate  towards  the  question  of 
reciprocal  arrangements  with  Canada  by  asserting  that  the 
members  from  the  South  always  viewed  every  measure  in 
which  the  North  was  interested  witd  evident  hostility.  The 
defeat  of  the  Grinnell  bill  he  therefore  ascribed  to  a  cabal 
of  Southern  senators  whose  opposition  was  based  "solely 
on  the  ground  of  its  being  one  in  which  the  Northern  States 
of  the  Union  were  generally  anxious  to  concur."  ^' 

Some  weeks  later,  March  22,  1849,  Crampton  wrote  a 
long  letter  to  John  M.  Clayton,  the  American  Secretary  of 
State,  in  which  he  recounted  the  history  of  the  attempts 
made  by  the  Canadian  Government  to  interest  the  United 
States  in  the  subject  of  reciprocity.  The  many  advantages 
that  would  accrue  to  the  United  States  under  a  system  of 
free  exchange  of  raw  products  were  carefully  rehearsed,  and 
the  wish  was  expressed  that  the  question  would  again  re- 
ceive the  "most  serious  consideration  of  the  United  States 
Government."  "* 

The  Canadian  Government,  despite  the  rebuffs  of  the 
United  States  Congress,  was  still  hopeful  of  effecting  some 
sort  of  a  working  agreement  with  the  United  States.  With 
this  idea  in  mind,  the  Canadian  Provincial  Parliament  passed 
an  act,  April  25,  1849,  which  provided  for  the  free  admis- 
sion into  Canada  of  certain  raw  products  of  the  United 

2*  Canadian  Archives,  Series  G,  132,  No.  303. 
'"Grey  to  Elgin,  March  31,  1849,  Canadian  Archives,  Series  G, 
133.  No.  354. 
2*  31st  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  H.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  64,  p.  3. 


205^       BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  RECIPROCITY   MOVEMENT  25 

States,  whenever  similar  articles,  the  produce  of  Canada, 
should  be  admitted  into  the  United  States  free  of  duty.^"^ 

On  June  25,  1849,  Mr.  Crampton  addressed  another  note 
to  Mr.  Clayton  on  the  subject  of  reciprocity  with  Canada, 
in  which  he  enclosed  a  memorandum  of  William  Hamilton 
Merritt,  who  had  been  sent  down  by  Lord  Elgin  to  facilitate 
the  passage  of  the  reciprocity  bill  through  Congress.  Ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Merritt,  a  reciprocity  arrangement  between 
Canada  and  the  United  States  would  be  mutually  advan- 
tageous, and  "  would  insure  to  farmers  on  both  sides  of  the 
boundary  all  the  natural  advantages  both  routes  possess,  and, 
at  all  times,  and  for  everything  they  grow,  the  highest  prices, 
whether  in  Europe  or  America."^®  But  Canada,  he  re- 
marked, was  fast  growing  weary  of  her  role  of  rejected  sup- 
pliant. She  had  made  several  advances  in  the  direction  of 
reciprocity,  but  these  had  not  been  met  by  the  United  States, 
and  now  the  Canadian  Government  was  about  to  request 
Great  Britain  to  extend  a  preference  to  Canadian  grain  im- 
ported into  the  United  Kingdom  unless  the  United  States 
was  willing  to  enter  into  a  reciprocal  arrangement  with  her 
northern  neighbor. 

In  Mr.  Crampton's  note  of  March  22,  1849,  there  was 
contained  a  suggestion  that  the  question  of  reciprocity  might 
be  settled  by  the  negotiation  of  a  reciprocity  treaty  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  This  mode  of  pro- 
cedure might  succeed  where  the  plan  of  Congressional  action 
had  apparently  failed.  Mr.  Clayton  in  acknowledging  Mr. 
Crampton's  note  of  June  25th,  and  the  enclosed  memoran- 
dum of  Mr.  Merritt,  took  occasion  to  discuss  these  two 
methods  of  securing  reciprocity. 

The  method  of  proceeding  by  way  of  a  treaty  was  not 
favorably  regarded  by  either  the  President  or  by  Mr.  Clayton. 
To  both  of  them  it  appeared  that  "  a  tariff  made  by  a  treaty, 
requiring  only  the  consent  of  the  President  and  Senate, 

*»  12  Victoria,  c  3,  Provincial  Statutes  of  Canada. 
'•31st  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  H,  Ex.  Doc.  No.  64,  p.  8. 


26  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1 854  [^2o6 

would  be  liable  to  objections  arising  out  of  the  provisions 
of  the  federal  constitution,  which  no  American  statesman 
could  safely  disregard."  The  President  therefore  had  "  no 
hesitation  in  deciding  that  any  attempt  to  carry  it  out  by 
his  intervention  through  the  medium  of  a  treaty,  would  be 
utterly  impracticable."  ^^  This  meant  that  the  only  way  that 
commercial  reciprocity  between  the  two  countries  could  be 
arranged  was  through  legislative  action,  and  inasmuch  as  the 
reciprocity  bill  had  twice  failed  to  pass  the  Senate  there  was 
scant  hope  that  such  an  arrangement  could  be  put  in  opera- 
tion for  some  years. 

In  the  meantime,  conditions  in  Canada  were  fast  growing 
desperate,  the  ever-increasing  unrest  being  caused  by  both 
political  and  economic  factors.  From  1842  to  1845,  Lord 
Metcalfe  had  served  as  Governor-General  of  Canada,  and, 
due  to  his  personal  influence,  a  Conservative  or  Tory  min- 
istry was  in  .control  of  the  provincial  parliament.  But  the 
restoration  of  the  Whig  party  to  power  in  England  meant 
the  overthrow  of  the  Tory  party  in  the  colonies,  and,  in 
1847,  Lord  Elgin  came  to  Canada  as  the  new  Governor-Gen- 
eral.^* In  the  following  year,  at  the  provincial  elections, 
the  Tory  party  suffered  a  crushing  defeat,  and  a  strong 
Coalition  ministry  under  the  joint  leadership  of  Lafontaine 
and  Baldwin  was  formed.-^ 

The  result  of  the  provincial  elections  was  a  sore  blow  to 
the  Tory  party  which  had  long  regarded  itself  as  the  only 
loyal  party  in  Canada,  and  the  loss  of  political  patronage 
made  their  chagrin  all  the  keener.  A  plausible  explanation 
for  their  defeat  seemed  necessary,  and  when  it  appeared  that 
the  Coalition  government  had  won  every  French  Canadian 
seat,  the  Tories  had  no  difficulty  in  deciding  that  the  direful 
result  had  been  effected  through  French  machinations.^"    It 

27  Ibid.,  p.  33. 

28  Theodore  Walrond.  Letters  and  Journals  of  James,  Eighth  Elarl 
of  Elgin  (London,  1872),  pp.  31-33. 

2»  C.  D.  Allin  and  George  M.  Jones,  Annexation,   Preferential 
Trade  and  Reciprocity  (London,  1912),  pp.  4-5. 
30  Ibid.,  pp.  5-6. 


207]]       BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   RECIPROCITY    MOVEMENT  2J 

was  but  natural,  therefore,  that  the  relations  between  the 
two  parties  should  become  increasingly  bitter ;  and  when  the 
Coalition  ministry  introduced  the  famous  "  Rebellion  Losses 
Bill "  which  provided  compensation  to  those  whose  property 
had  been  illegally  destroyed  in  the  Rebellion  of  1837,  t^- 
resentment  of  the  Tory  party  knew  no  bounds.®^  In  Mon- 
treal this  hatred  of  the  Coalition  ministry  reached  a  focal 
point,  several  of  the  newspapers  openly  preaching  disloyalty 
and  civil  war.^^  Other  Tory  organs  advocated  annexation 
to  the  United  States  "  rather  than  be  trodden  upon  by  French 
licentiousness." 

A  considerable  part  of  this  agitation  had  for  its  purpose 
the  defeat  of  the  "  Rebellion  Losses  Bill,"  and  when  it  was 
accepted  by  the  provincial  parliament  in  April,  1849,  the 
Tories  were  beside  themselves  with  rage.  On  the  afternoon 
of  April  25,  1849,  Lord  Elgin  drove  to  the  House  of  Par- 
liament to  give  the  royal  assent  to  the  bill,  and  after  he  had 
completed  the  accustomed  formality  he  prepared  to  return 
to  his  country  seat  at  Monklands.  But  no  sooner  did  he 
leave  the  Parliament  House  than  he  was  beset  by  a  howling 
mob  that  pelted  him  with  rotten  eggs  and  stones.  He  man- 
aged to  reach  Monklands  without  serious  injury,  but  the 
mob  in  Montreal  exacted  vicarious  satisfaction  by  burning 
the  Parliament  House  to  the  ground,  and  wrecking  the  res- 
idence of  M.  Lafontaine,  the  leader  of  the  Coalition  Govern- 
ment. Five  days  later,  April  30th,  when  Lord  Elgin  drove 
from  Monklands  to  Government  House  in  Montreal,  he  was 
again  greeted  with  a  shower  of  missiles,  one  large  stone 
striking  him  full  on  the  chest.^^ 

But  the  Tories  did  not  represent  the  only  disaffected  ele- 
ments in  Canada.    The  repeal  of  colonial  preference  had 


*i  George  M.  Wrong,  The  Earl  of  Elgin  (London,  1905),  pp.  40- 
44. 

'*AIlin  and  Jones,  pp.  5-6. 

3s  Walrond,  pp.  70-^;  Wrong,  pp.  45-51 ;  Sir  John  George  Bouri- 
not,  Lord  Elgin  (Toronto,  1903),  pp.  72-75;  Montreal"  Pilot,  April 
26,  27. 


28  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1854  JjZOS 

threatened  the  whole  economic  structure  of  Canada,  and 
business  of  all  kinds  was  at  a  standstill.  In  1848  Lord  Elgin 
wrote  to  the  Colonial  Secretary  that  "property  in  most  of 
the  Canadian  towns,  and  more  especially  in  the  capital,  has 
fallen  fifty  per  cent  in  value  within  the  last  three  years. 
Three-fourths  of  the  commercial  men  are  bankrupt,  owing 
to  free-trade."  ^*  In  the  following  year  conditions  were  no 
better,  and  on  June  15,  1849,  Elgin  wrote  to  Grey  that  some 
arrangement  with  the  United  States  was  vitally  necessary, 
and  that  he  viewed  with  apprehension  the  "effect  which  is 
likely  to  be  produced  in  Canada  by  a  continued  refusal  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States  to  accede  to  the  terms  of  reci- 
procity which  have  been  proposed  unless  Great  Britain  shall 
adopt  some  arrangement  whereby  the  Canadian  farmer  may 
be  compensated  for  the  loss  to  which  he  is  subject  by  the 
tax  levied  on  his  produce  when  imported  for  consumption 
into  the  United  States."  ^^  Elgin  then  remarked  that  a  gen- 
eral business  depression  still  existed  and  that  unless  some- 
thing was  soon  done  to  ameliorate  conditions  he  greatly 
feared  that  "  ere  long  a  combination  of  a  very  serious  char- 
acter will  be  formed  against  the  truest  interest  of  England."  '• 

Elgin's  despatch  of  July  2,  1849,  shows  deep  concern  over 
the  failure  of  the  reciprocity  bill  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
and  he  expresses  the  hope  that  Her  Majesty's  Government 
will  try  to  negotiate  a  reciprocity  arrangement  "at  the 
earliest  practicable  period."  The  discontent  in  Canada  ne- 
cessitates some  commercial  arrangement  with  the  United 
States,  and  it  is  his  "  firm  conviction  "  that  such  an  arrange- 
ment would  "go  farther  to  promote  the  prosperity  of  the 
Colony  and  to  produce  political  contentment  than  any  boon 
which  it  is  in  Great  Britain's  power  to  grant."  ^^ 

The  repeal  of  the  colonial  preference  on  grain  and  flour 
had  proved  disastrous  to  the  milling  and  transportation  in- 

"Walrond,  p.  70. 

25  Elgin  to  Grey,  Canadian  Archives,  Series  G,  No.  69. 

2*  Canadian  Archives,  Series  G,  No.  69. 

"  Ibid.,  No.  88. 


209^       BEGINNINGS  OF   THE  RECIPROCITY    MOVEMENT  29 

terests  of  Canada,  and  this  despite  Mr.  Gladstone's  confi- 
dent predictions  to  the  contrary.  Lord  Grey,  in  his  review 
of  the  "  Colonial  Policy  of  Lord  John  Russell's  Administra- 
tion," trenchantly  observes  that  either  the  Act  of  1843, 
under  which  the  milling  interests  received  such  considerable 
encouragement,  or  the  repealing  act  of  1846  was  "grievously 
wrong,"  and  that  the  action  of  the  Government  in  this  mat- 
ter "brought  upon  the  Province  a  frightful  amount  of  loss 
to  individuals,  and  a  great  derangement  of  the  Colonial  fi- 
nances." '* 

This  arraignment  of  the  policy  of  the  British  Government 
with  regard  to  the  repeal  of  the  colonial  preference  on  grain 
and  flour  is  clearly  substantiated  by  the  figures  given  in  the 
Parliamentary  papers  dealing  with  colonial  exports.  The 
imports  of  wheat  into  the  United  Kingdom  from  the  Brit- 
ish Possessions  out  of  Europe  (mainly  Canada)  for  the 
years  1840-1847  are  given  as  follows,  in  quarters:  8,195; 
68,859;  38,981;  22,137;  40.275;  51.539;  88,814.  The  im- 
ports from  foreign  countries  during  the  same  period  were: 
1,985,188;  2,340,895;  2,678,473;  917.983;  1,058,802;  820,- 
171 ;  1,343,777.  On  June  26,  1846,  the  acts  reducing  the 
colonial  preference  on  grain  went  into  effect,  and  a  decrease 
in  colonial  importations  was  soon  noticeable.  The  imports 
of  colonial  grain,  in  quarters,  for  the  years  1847-1849  were 
as  follows:  100,780;  32,560;  and  25,401.  The  imports  of 
foreign  grain  for  these  same  years  were :  2,555,673 ;  2,548,- 

398;  3.819.977." 

The  sharp  decline  in  the  imports  of  colonial  grain  into  the 
United  Kingdom  and  the  large  increase  of  importations  of 
foreign  grain  after  1846  are  significant,  and  conclusively 
show  how  great  was  the  repressing  effect  of  the  repeal  of 
colonial  preference.  When  we  consider  the  figures  with 
reference  to  the  flour  trade  the  extent  of  the  damage  to  the 
colonial  export  trade  is  even  more  apparent.    From  1840  to 

••Grey  (London,  1853),  p.  221. 

••  Parliamentary  Papers,  1905,  vol.  72,  Cd.  2394,  p.  135. 


30  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1854  ^2IO 

1843,  th^  importations  of  colonial  flour  as  measured  in  hun- 
dred-weights are  as  follows:  490,987;  665,562;  561,966. 
The  importations  of  foreign  flour  for  the  same  period  were : 
1,046,851;  597,564;  567,886.  In  1843,  Parliament  passed 
an  act  admitting  colonial  wheat  into  the  United  Kingdom 
at  a  fixed  duty  payable  upon  the  quantity  of  wheat  used  in 
its  manufacture.  Amei^ican  wheat  ground  into  flour  in 
Canadian  mills  was  accounted  a  manufactured  product  of 
Canada,  and  was  admitted  at  the  same  rate  that  was  levied 
upon  flour  ground  from  colonial  wheat.  This  concession 
naturally  proved  a  great  boon  to  the  milling  interests  of 
Canada,  and  the  exports  of  flour  to  the  United  Kingdom 
quickly  increased  in  volume.  For  the  years  1843  to  1846 
the  imports  of  flour  from  the  British  Possessions  out  of 
Europe  (mainly  Canada)  into  the  United  Kingdom  were 
as  follows :  (cwt.)  336,587 ;  679,486 ;  675,408 ;  804,790.  The 
imports  of  foreign  flour  during  the  same  period  were:  100,- 
290;  301,159;  270,456;  2,285,639.'"' 

In  1846,  Parliament  provided  for  a  reduction  of  the 
colonial  preference  on  flour,  and  after  February  i,  1849, 
even  this  preference  was  to  be  abandoned.*^  The  result  of 
this  legislation  is  reflected  in  the  imports  of  colonial  flour 
from  1847-1849.  The  actual  imports  were  (cwt.)  :  1,094,- 
141;  564,421;  466,217.  The  impetus  given  to  the  foreign 
import  trade  during  these  years  is  shown  as  follows :  5,234,- 
917;  1,190,028;  2,883,622.*^  It  is  evident  from  these  figures 
that  the  grain  and  flour  trade  of  Canada  really  suflFered 
"grievous  injury"  by  the  repeal  of  colonial  preference,  and 
the  zeal  of  the  Canadian  Government  in  pushing  reciprocity 
with  the  United  States  can  be  well  understood. 

As  a  result  of  Lord  Elgin's  numerous  despatches  setting 
forth  the  desperate  state  of  affairs  in  Canada,  the  British 
Government  finally  bestirred  itself,  and  in  the  autumn  of 

*o  Ibid.,  pp.  134-135. 

*i  9  and  10  Victoria,  c.  23. 

*2  Parliamentary  Papers,  1905,  vol.  72,  Cd.  2394,  pp.  134-135. 


2Il3       BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   RECIPROCITY   MOVEMENT  3 J 

1849,  Sir  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer  was  sent  to  Washington  to 
negotiate  a  reciprocity  treaty  with  the  United  States,  In  the 
meantime,  Crampton,  the  British  minister  at  Washington, 
had  been  informed  by  Mr,  Clayton,  the  American  Secretary 
of  State,  that  the  United  States  would  not  consider  any 
reciprocity  arrangement  which  did  not  include  all  the  British 
North  American  Provinces,  and  also  "  unless  the  Cod  Fish- 
eries in  the  waters  of  the  British  North  American  Colonies 
were  thrown  open  to  the  Fishermen  of  the  United  States," 
In  the  instructions  given  to  Sir  Henry  Bulwer,  the  British 
Government  stressed  the  need  of  some  sort  of  a  reciprocity 
convention  between  Canada  and  the  United  States,  which  it 
described  as  "  of  the  very  highest  importance  both  commer- 
cially and  politically."  In  view  of  this  fact  Her  Majesty's 
Government  was  willing  to  concede  Mr.  Clayton's  request 
that  the  fishermen  of  the  United  States  be  permitted  to  fish 
in  the  waters  of  the  British  North  American  Colonies,  and 
land  upon  the  "  coasts  of  those  Colonies  for  the  purpose  of 
drying  their  nets  and  curing  their  Fish,  providing  that  in 
doing  so  they  do  not  interfere  with  the  Owners  of  private 
property,  or  with  the  operations  of  British  Fishermen." 
Her  Majesty's  Government  was  also  willing  that,  with  the 
exception  of  Newfoundland,  all  the  British  North  American 
colonies  be  included  within  the  operation  of  any  such  con- 
vention.*' 

In  return  for  these  concessions  the  British  Government 
desired  that  all  "fish,  either  fresh  or  cured,  imported  into 
the  United  States  from  the  British  North  American  Posses- 
sions in  vessels  of  any  Nation  or  Description,  should  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  United  States  duty  free,  and  upon  terms  in 
all  respects  of  equality  with  Fish  imported  by  Citizens  of 
the  United  States."  The  British  Government  would  also 
expressly  reserve  all  fishing  rights  in  the  estuaries  and  in  the 
mouths  of  rivers  in  which  the  salmon  fishing  was  conducted. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  British  Government  would  be 
willing  to  concede  the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence 

"Canadian  Archives,  Series  G,  135. 


32  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1854  (^212 

River  and  of  certain  of  the  St.  Lawrence  canals,  and,  fur- 
thermore, would  forego  its  right  under  the  2d  article  of  the 
Treaty  of  June  15,  1846,  to  navigate  the  Columbia  River.** 

Sir  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer  arrived  in  Washington  in  Janu- 
ary, 1850,  and  on  the  22nd  of  that  month  he  addressed  a  long 
letter  to  Mr.  Clayton  on  the  subject  of  reciprocity.  He 
remarked  that  it  was  his  understanding  that  at  one  time  Mr. 
Clayton  was  "  rather  disposed  in  favor  of  a  general  treaty 
of  reciprocity  between  the  United  States  and  our  North 
American  Colonies  on  the  basis  of  a  free  interchange  of  the 
natural  products  of  the  United  States  and  our  North  Amer- 
ican possessions."  His  Government  had  therefore  g^ven 
him  authority  to  treat  with  Mr.  Clayton  if  he  should  find 
him  "  of  opinion  that  a  negotiation  of  this  kind  was  likely 
to  have  a  prompt  and  successful  termination."  If,  however, 
"  the  negotiation  for  such  a  treaty  would  simply  mean  a  long 
discussion  without  doing  anything,"  he  thought  it  would  be 
"  better  to  leave  the  Canada  bill  unencumbered."  *^ 

On  January  29,  1850,  a  bill  was  reported  to  the  House  of 
Representatives,  from  the  Committee  on  Commerce,  "to 
admit  certain  articles  of  the  grbwth  and  production  of  Can- 
ada into  the  United  States  free  of  duty,  upon  the  condition 
that  the  like  articles  of  the  growth  or  production  of  the 
United  States  be  admitted  into  Canada  free  of  duty."  This 
bill  was  then  recommitted  to  the  Committee  on  Commerce, 
with  a  "  view  to  provide  therein  for  the  free  navigation  of 
the  river  St.  Lawrence,  and  to  assimilate  the  same  to  the  bill 
now  pending  before  the  Senate."  The  Committee,  how- 
ever, was  not  disposed  "  to  introduce  into  the  bill  any  condi- 
tion whatever  in  regard  to  the  free  navigation  of  the  river 
if  it  can  be  secured  by  the  treaty-power  of  the  Government, 
and  they  are  led  to  believe  that  it  is  in  your  power  to  obtain 
a  full  and  satisfactory  assurance  to  this  effect  at  this  time." 
On  March  15,  1850,  Robert  M.  McLane,  Chairman  of  the 


**  Ibid. 

*''John  M.  Clayton  Papers,  MS.,  Library  of  Congress,  vol.  viii. 


213^       BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  RECIPROCITY   MOVEMENT  33 

House  Committee  on  Commerce,  wrote  to  Mr.  Clayton,  and 
after  recounting  the  history  of  the  pending  reciprocity  bill 
he  inquired  whether  it  would  be  possible  for  the  Secretary 
of  State  to  "  communicate  to  the  Committee  assurances  .  .  . 
that  the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  would  be  ten- 
dered to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  upon  terms  satis- 
factory to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  upon  the 
passage  of  the  bill  in  question."** 

Upon  the  receipt  of  this  letter  from  the  Chairman  of  the 
House  Committee  on  Commerce,  Clayton,  on  March  26, 
1850,  wrote  to  Sir  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer  and  requested  an 
official  note  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  McLane's  inquiry.  On 
the  following  day,  Sir  Henry  replied  to  Mr.  Clayton's  note, 
and  with  regard  to  the  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  he 
informed  the  Secretary  of  State  that  he  felt  "no  hesitation 
...  in  stating  that  the  instructions  with  which  I  came  to  the 
United  States  warrant  me  ...  in  assuring  you  that,  should 
a  bill  corresponding  to  that  which  has  received  the  sanction 
of  the  legislature  in  Canada  be  passed  by  the  legislature  of 
the  United  States  and  receive  the  sanction  of  the  President, 
Her  Majesty's  Government  will  be  ready  to  respond  to  any 
application  which  the  United  States  Government  may  address 
to  it  on  the  subject  ...  by  at  once  consenting  to  open  the 
navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  and  of  the  canals  thereto 
adjoining  ...  to  the  shipping  and  citizens  of  the  United 
States."  " 

On  April  4,  1850,  Grey  wrote  to  Elgin  and  enclosed  cor- 
respondence from  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  relative  to  the  Senate 
bill  on  reciprocity,  which  included  a  clause  providing  for  the 
free  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River.  Immediately 
after  receiving  Sir  Henry  Bulwer's  despatch  regarding  the 
Senate  bill.  Grey  instructed  the  Foreign  Office  that  the  free 
navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  should  "  in  a  pinch  "  be  con- 
ceded to  American  citizens,  but  if  possible  this  permission 

*«3ist  Cong..  1st  sess.,  H.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  64,  pp.  34-35. 
« Ibid,,  p.  36. 


34  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY    TREATY    OF    1854  [^2l4 

should  be  withheld,*^  One  of  the  enclosed  letters  was  a  com- 
munication of  March  2,  1850,  from  Sir  Henry  Bulwer,  in 
which  he  observed  it  was  well  known  in  the  United  States 
that  England  would  concede  the  free  navigation  of  the  St. 
Lawrence  before  she  would  jeopardize  the  passage  of  the 
reciprocity  bills  pending  in  Congress.*^  It  was  Sir  Henry 
Bulwer 's  opinion  that  the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  Law- 
rence would  have  to  be  granted  and  that  it  should  be  made 
the  subject  of  a  special  convention  and  thus  leave  the  reci- 
procity bills  unencumbered  with  any  such  provision.  Hov;- 
ever,  in  a  letter  of  April  16,  1850,  to  Lord  Palmerston  he 
confides  that  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  who  had  charge  of  the 
Senate  bill,  was  very  loath  to  omit  the  clause  relating  to  the 
St.  Lawrence,  and  Bulwer  suggests  that  Douglas  s  ob- 
stinacy was  caused  by  his  desire  to  obtain  for  himself  "  the 
credit  for  the  measure."  ®° 

On  May  7,  1850,  President  Taylor  transmitted  to  the 
House  of  Representatives  the  correspondence  between  the 
Department  of  State  and  the  British  legation  relative  to 
reciprocity  with  Canada,  and  he  took  occasion  to  submit  the 
whole  question  to  "the  consideration  of  Congress,  and  es- 
pecially whether  the  concession  proposed  by  Great  Britain 
is  an  equivalent  for  the  reciprocity  desired  by  her."  ^^  On 
May  1 6th  a  bill  providing  for  reciprocal  trade  with  Canada 
was  discussed  in  the  House,  and  was  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  whole  on  the  State  of  the  Union.^^  The  whole 
question  of  reciprocity  was  then  allowed  to  slumber  for 
some  months.  Several  reasons  accounted  for  this.  Our 
relations  with  England  were  becoming  decidedly  strained  be- 
cause of  the  "  Greytown  Affair,"  and  the  summer  of  1850 
was  largely  taken  up  with  negotiations  leading  to  the  Clay- 

**  Canadian  Archives,  Series  G,  136,  No.  481. 
"  Ibid. 

"o  Bulwer  to  Palmerston,  Canadian  Archives,  Series  G,  136,  No. 
493. 
"^3ist  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  H.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  64. 
"*  Cong.  Globe,  31st  Cong.,  ist  sess.,  pp.  1009-1010. 


2I5j       BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   RECIPROCITY    MOVEMENT  35 

ton-Bulwer  Treaty,  which  adjusted  these  differences.  Also, 
the  health  of  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  was  none  too  good,  the 
Clayton  papers  being  filled  with  notes  from  Sir  Henry  ex- 
cusing, on  account  of  illness,  his  ability  to  keep  certain  im- 
portant appointments  with  Clayton." 

But  most  of  all,  there  was  manifest  in  Congress  a  strong 
hostility  to  any  scheme  of  reciprocity,  which  was  regarded 
by  protectionists  as  a  dangerous  concession  to  the  advocates 
of  free  trade.  In  the  House  of  Representatives  the  ques- 
tion was  not  seriously  considered  after  May,  1850,  and  in 
the  Senate,  despite  the  efforts  of  Mr.  Douglas,  a  similar  fate 
attended  all  efforts  to  secure  action  on  the  bill.  Mr.  Ewing 
of  Ohio  was  particularly  opposed  to  the  bill,  for  in  his  opin- 
ion it  "  was  fraught  with  the  utmost  mischief  to  all  the  inter- 
ests of  the  country."^*  On  September  21,  1850,  Mr.  Doug- 
las, for  the  last  time,  during  the  first  session  of  the  thirty- 
first  Congress,  asked  the  Senate  to  "take  up  the  bill  on  the 
subject  of  reciprocity,"  but  in  view  of  the  strong  opposition 
to  the  measure,  he  withdrew  his  request  and  the  question  of 
reciprocity  was  again  postponed  to  await  the  decision  of  a 
later  Congress.**^ 

During  the  next  session  of  Congress  the  reciprocity  bill 
failed  to  make  much  progress.  On  December  10,  1850,  Mr. 
Harris  of  Illinois  introduced  into  the  House  a  bill  providing 
for  reciprocity  in  trade  between  the  United  States  and  Can- 
ada, and  for  the  free  navigation  of  the  canals  and  waters  of 
Canada  by  American  vessels.  The  bill  was  read  a  first  and 
second  time  by  title  and  then  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Commerce."*  The  Canadian  Government  now  realized  that 
it  would  be  expedient  to  have  resident  in  Washington  some 
person  of  influence  who  could  indicate  to  the  Congressional 
Committees  on  Commerce  the  many  advantages  of  reciprocity 
with  Canada.     Lord  Elgin  therefore  selected  Francis  Hincks, 

"  Clayton  Papers,  Library  of  Congress,  vol.  9. 
«*  Cong.  Globe,  31st  Cong.,  ist  sess.,  p.  1908. 
65  Ibid. 
'•  Ibid  ,  2d  sess.,  p.  22.  / 


36  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY    TREATY    OF    1854  [216 

Inspector-General  of  Canada,  to  undertake  this  important 
mission,  and  on  January  6,  1851,  Hincks  addressed  a  lengthy 
and  closely  reasoned  communication  to  R.  M.  McLane, 
Chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on  Commerce.  Hincks 
pointed  out  how  Canada  had  repealed  the  differential  duties 
in  favor  of  British  manufacture  with  the  result  that  the 
duties  collected  at  the  port  of  Toronto  had  risen  from  $30,- 
000  in  1846,  to  nearly  $400,000  in  1850.  This  increase  he 
attributed  "  mainly  to  the  American  trade  which  has  sprung 
up  since  the  removal  of  the  differential  duties."  "  He  also 
adverted  to  the  fact  that  until  very  recently  the  Maritime 
Provinces  of  Nova  Scotia,  New  Brunswick,  Prince  Edward 
Island,  and  Newfoundland  had  been  "among  the  best  cus- 
tomers of  the  United  States  for  bread  stuffs."  Heretofore 
there  had  been  in  operation  in  these  provinces  a  tariff  impos- 
ing duties  on  flour  ranging  from  twenty-five  cents  to  seventy- 
five  cents  per  barrel,  but  within  the  past  year  arrangements 
had  been  effected  by  Canada  with  three  of  these  provinces 
for  a  free  interchange  of  their  natural  productions,  and  Mr. 
Hincks  was  convinced  that  a  "very  large  trade  will  be  di- 
verted to  those  provinces  from  the  city  of  New  York  unless 
the  present  restrictions  be  removed."'*  Mr.  Hincks  then 
concluded  his  memorial  by  threatening  retaliation  should  the 
United  States  continue  its  dilatory  policy  relative  to  reci- 
procity with  Canada.  Canada  would  reenact  the  differential 
duties  in  favor  of  British  manufactures,  and,  by  closing  the 
Canadian  canals  to  American  shipping,  she  would  inflict  a 
"most  serious  injury"  upon  the  trade  of  Chicago,  Cleve- 
land, and  other  lake  ports. 

But  the  threats  of  Hincks  proved  unavailing.  On  Febru- 
ary 28,  185 1,  the  question  of  reciprocity  with  Canada  was 
discussed  in  the  House  of  Representatives  for  the  last  time 
during  the  second  session  of  the  thirty-first  Congress,  and 
no  favorable  action  was  taken.  Mr.  McLane,  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Commerce,  spoke  strongly  in  favor  of  a 

5^  32d  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  i,  p.  85. 
•'^aist  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  i,  p.  86. 


217]]       BEGINNINGS   OF  THE  RECIPROCITY   MOVEMENT  37 

commercial  arrangement  with  Canada.  He  dilated  upon  the 
increase  in  trade  between  the  United  States  and  Canada  since 
the  repeal  by  the  Canadian  Government  of  the  preferential 
duties  in  favor  of  English  manufactures,  and  he  introduced 
a  bill  making  the  duration  of  any  reciprocity  arrangement 
dependent  upon  the  continuance  of  this  equality  of  treatment 
by  the  Canadian  Government  of  the  manufactures  of  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States.'^  Mr.  McLane's  arguments, 
however,  were  no  more  persuasive  than  those  of  Mr.  Hincks, 
so  the  question  was  left  unsettled. 

In  the  Senate  the  subject  of  reciprocity  received  even  less 
consideration  than  in  the  House.  On  January  9,  1851,  Mr. 
Douglas  asked  permission  to  "  propose  the  prior  orders  of  the 
day  for  the  purpose  of  taking  up  the  bill  providing  for  the 
free  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  and  for  reciprocal 
trade  with  Canada."  His  object  in  making  the  motion  was 
"  simply  that  it  may  be  made  the  special  order  for  some  future 
day."  The  motion  of  Mr.  Douglas  was  agreed  to  and  the 
reciprocity  bill  was  made  the  special  order  of  the  day  for 
Tuesday,  January  21,  1851.*°  But  the  proceedings  of  that 
day  were  taken  up  with  the  consideration  of  amendments  to 
the  rules  of  the  Senate,  and  no  further  notice  was  given  to 
the  question  of  reciprocity.*^ 

The  failure  of  Congress  to  pass  a  reciprocity  measure  was 
a  grievous  disappointment  to  the  Canadian  Government.  On 
March  20,  1851,  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  wrote  to  Daniel  Webster, 
Secretary  of  State  under  President  Fillmore,  and  alluded 
"to  the  dissatisfaction  that  has  been  produced  throughout 
British  North  America  since  it  has  been  known  that  no  bill 
has  passed  the  United  States  Legislature  replying  to  the 
friendly  disposition  which  has  long  been  manifested  by  the 
British  provinces  in  North  America."  The  Canadians,  es- 
pecially, believed  that  their  application  for  an  interchange  of 

"•  Cong.  Globe,  31st  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  751. 

""Ibid.,  p.  203. 

«i  Ibid.,  pp.  393-296. 


38  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1854  [[218 

agricultural  products  had  failed  of  success  "  because  they 
have  generously  and  without  stipulations  conceded  many 
commercial  advantages  which  it  was  in  their  power  to  bestow 
upon  the  trade  of  this  country."  Therefore,  they  were  of 
the  opinion  that  "  their  only  mode  of  obtaining  adequate  at- 
tention is  to  replace  themselves  in  the  situation  in  which  they 
were  previous  to  making  the  aforesaid  concessions."*' 

Bulwer  greatly  deprecated  the  spirit  of  retaliation  that  was 
fast  growing  stronger  in  Canada,  and  he  inquired  whether 
Webster  "  would  be  disposed  to  enter  into  a  negotiation,  em- 
bracing a  consideration  of  the  various  commercial  advantages 
affecting  the  trade  and  intercourse  with  the  British  North 
American  provinces  which  have  been  and  could  be  extended 
by  the  British  Government,  and  by  the  British  North  Amer- 
ican provinces  themselves  to  the  United  States,  and  also  with 
respect  to  the  advantages  of  a  like  kind  which  could  be  con- 
ferred by  the  United  States  on  the  aforesaid  provinces."*^ 

On  March  29,  185 1,  W.  S.  Derrick,  chief  clerk,  Depart- 
ment of  State,  replied  to  Sir  Henry  Bulwer's  note  of  the  day 
previous,  and  informed  him  that  by  the  direction  of  Mr. 
Webster  the  correspondence  from  the  British  Legation  had 
been  referred  to  the  President  for  consideration.**  Some 
five  weeks  later,  June  7,  1851,  Lord  Elgin  despatched  a  short 
note  to  Sir  Henry  Bulwer,  in  which  he  indicated  the  growing 
dissatisfaction  in  Canada  with  reference  to  the  dilatory  pol- 
icy of  the  United  States.  Unless  some  spirit  of  compromise 
or  conciliation  should  soon  manifest  itself,  it  was  more  than 
likely  that  measures  of  retaliation  on  the  part  of  Canada 
would  be  promptly  pressed,  and  these  under  four  possible 
heads : 

1.  The  closing  of  the  Canadian  canals. 

2.  The  imposition  of  duties  of  20  per  cent  on  imports 
from  the  United  States. 

«2  32d  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  i,  pp.  83-84. 
e»  Ibid.,  pp.  83-84. 
«*  Ibid.,  p.  89. 


2193       BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   RECIPROCITY    MOVEMENT  39 

3.  The  reenactment  of  differential  duties  to  draw  trade  to 
Quebec  and  Montreal. 

4.  The  appeal  through  the  Queen  to  the  British  Parlia- 
ment to  reenact  duties  on  the  natural  products  of  the  United 
States  imported  into  Great  Britain.^® 

On  June  24,  185 1,  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  addressed  a  note  to 
Daniel  Webster  in  which  the  forebodings  of  Lord  Elgin  were 
duly  set  forth,  and  in  an  apparent  effort  to  obviate  any  fric- 
tion between  the  United  States  and  Canada,  Sir  Henry  again 
inquired  whether  Mr.  Webster  was  willing  to  enter  into  nego- 
tiations relative  to  a  treaty  of  commercial  reciprocity  between 
the  two  countries.^® 

President  Fillmore,  however,  was  not  in  favor  of  adjust- 
ing our  relations  with  Canada  by  means  of  a  treaty,  so  on 
December  2,  185 1,  in  his  annual  message  to  Congress  he  then 
invited  their  attention  to  this  question,  and  expressed  the 
opinion  that  it  seemed  "in  many  respects  preferable  that 
the  matter  should  be  regulated  by  reciprocal  legislation,""'^ 
But  Congress  "  did  nothing,  s£iid  nothing,  thought  nothing  on 
the  subject,"  so  the  question  was  postponed  until  the  follow- 
ing year.®* 

In  this  year,  a  new  element  was  introduced  that  tended 
completely  to  dissolve  the  indifference  of  Congress  toward 
the  question  of  reciprocity — ^the  Northeastern  fisheries.  Un- 
der the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  citizens  of  the  United 
States  had  the  right  freely  to  take  fish  on  the  Banks  of  New- 
foundland, in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  at  all  other 
places  in  the  sea.  They  also  enjoyed  the  liberty  of  taking 
fish  on  the  British  coasts  generally,  and  could  dry  and  cure 
the  same  in  any  of  the  unsettled  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks 
of  Nova  Scotia,  Magdalen  Islands,  and  Labrador.,  Under 
the  treaty  of  1818,  their  right  to  take  fish  remained  as  under 


"» Ibid.,  pp.  90-91. 

«« Ibid.,  pp.  89^. 

•^  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  v,  pp. 
118-119. 

«*  Wm.  H.  Seward,  Speech,  Aug.  14,  1852,  Cong.  Globe,  32d  Cong., 
1st  sess.,  App.  I,  p.  914. 


40  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY   OF    1854  [^220 

the  treaty  of  1783,  but  the  liberty  to  take  and  cure  fish  on  the 
British  coasts  was  seriously  curtailed,  and  was  permitted  only 
within  specified  limits.  Moreover,  the  interpretation  of  the 
wording  of  the  treaty  of  181 8  soon  led  to  serious  difficulties. 
According  to  articles  of  the  treaty,  the  American  fishermen 
could  no  longer  take,  dry,  or  cure  fish  within  three  marine 
miles  of  the  "  coasts,  bays,  creeks,  or  harbors  of  His  Britan- 
nic Majesty's  Dominions  in  America,"®^  except  within  lim- 
its, and  a  controversy  at  once  arose  as  to  the  exact  meaning 
of  the  term  "bays."  The  British  authorities  claimed  that 
the  term  included  all  bays,  whatever  their  extent,  and  Amer- 
ican fishing  vessels  were  seized  even  in  such  a  wide  body  of 
water  as  the  Bay  of  Fundy.''** 

This  restriction  threatened  enormous  injury  to  the  Amer- 
ican fishing  industry.  Cod-fishing  is  deep-sea  fishing,  and 
can  be  profitably  pursued  only  during  certain  seasons.  In 
view  of  this  contingency  it  had  been  the  practice  of  Amer- 
ican fishermen  in  the  slack  seasons  to  enter  the  bays  and  in- 
lets of  Nova  Scotia,  Cape  Breton,  and  Prince  Edward  Is- 
land and  fish  for  herring  and  mackerel.  As  it  happened, 
the  schools  of  herring  and  mackerel  were  generally  found 
within  the  three  mile  limit,  so  venturesome  Yankee  skippers 
were  wont  not  only  to  sail  within  the  bays,  but  also  boldly  to 
pursue  their  calling  within  the  three  mile  limit  of  the  British 
North  American  coasts.  This,  in  turn,  led  to  very  grave 
consequences,  for  in  time  of  storm  "the  American  fishing 
vessels  were  obliged  to  place  themselves  in  difficult  and  dan- 
gerous positions  to  avoid  detection.  In  1851,  over  100  ves- 
sels were  driven  ashore  on  Prince  Edward  Island  in  a  gale, 
and  over  300  lives  were  lost.  The  fleet  braved  the  storm 
rather  than  run  for  port  and  thus  confess  their  infraction 
of  the  British  rights.'^^ 

••United  States  Treaties  in  Force,  compited  by  H.  L.  Bryan 
(Washington,  1899),  p.  220. 

^^  J.  B.  iloore,  Digest  of  International  Law,  vol.  i,  pp.  78^-787. 

'1  Arthur  Harvey,  The  Reciprocity  Treaty  (Quebec,  1865),  p.  15  n.; 
32d  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  S.  Doc  112,  pt.  i,  pp.  39-41. 


22  ij       BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  RECIPROCITY   MOVEMENT  41 

In  this  same  year,  June  21,  1851,  the  president  of  the  ex- 
ecutive council  of  Canada  and  the  secretary  of  Nova  Scotia 
signed  an  agreement  to  cooperate  in  protecting  the  fisheries 
from  Yankee  incursions.  With  this  end  in  view  the  two 
provinces  agreed  to  provide  either  a  steamer  or  two  or  more 
sailir^  vessels  to  cruise  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  or  along 
the  coasts  of  Labrador.^^  Repeated  requests  were  now  made 
to  the  British  Government  to  render  similar  assistance  and 
finally,  on  May  27,  1852,  Lord  Pakington  announced  to  Lord 
Elgin  that  it  was  the  intention  of  Her  Majesty's  Government 
to  "despatch  as  soon  as  possible  a  small  naval  force  of 
steamers,  or  other  vessels,  to  enforce  the  convention  of 
1818."^^ 

On  July  5,  1852,  Mr.  Crampton,  the  British  minister  at 
Washington,  despatched  a  note  to  Mr.  Webster  advising  him 
that  Her  Majesty's  Government  had  decided  to  station  "  off 
New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  Prince  Edward's  Island,  and 
in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  such  a  force  of  small  sailing 
vessels  and  steamers  as  shall  be  deemed  sufficient  to  prevent 
the  infraction  of  the  treaty  (of  1818)."  ^*  Upon  the  receipt 
of  this  news.  President  Fillmore  at  once  ordered  Commodore 
Perry  to  proceed  to  "the  fishing  grounds  on  the  coasts  of 
the  British  possessions  in  North  America,  for  the  purpose  of 
protecting  the  rights  of  American  fishermen  under  the  con- 
vention of  the  20th  of  October,  1818."  " 

The  British  Government,  however,  was  desirous  of  avoid- 
ing any  possible  collisions  between  the  armed  forces  of  the 
two  countries,  as  the  instructions  to  Admiral  Sir  George 
Seymour  clearly  reveal.  In  enforcing  the  convention  of 
1818  the  officers  employed  in  Her  Majesty's  service  "  should 
be  enjoined  to  avoid  all  unnecessary  interference  with  the 
vessels  of  friendly  powers,  and  all  harshness  in  the  perform- 
ance of  their  duty."    The  concession  to  the  United  States 

''^  32d  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  S.  Ex,  Doc,  No,  22,  pp.  436-437. 
"Canadian  Archives,  Series  G,  141,  No,  32, 
'*32d  Cong,,  1st  sess.,  H,  Ex,  Doc,  No,  120,  pp,  107-108. 
76  Ibid,,  p,  1. 


42  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY    TREATY    OF    1 854  [222 

fishermen  in  1845  to  fish  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy  should  be  con- 
sidered as  still  in  force,  and  even  though  Americans  land  and 
dry  their  nets  and  cure  fish  on  Magdalen  Islands,  yet  they 
"  should  not  be  practically  interfered  with."  '® 

On  October  19,  1852,  Pakington  enclosed  in  his  instruc- 
tions to  Lord  Elgin  an  interesting  report  by  the  law  officers 
of  the  crown  on  certain  questions  propounded  by  Vice-Ad- 
miral Seymour : 

1.  Do  the  naval  officers  of  the  Crown  need  a  Commission  from  the 

government  of  the  Colonies  before  seizing  American  vessels? 
To  this  the  law  officers  answered  No. 

2.  Can  American  fishermen  land  in  the  harbors  of  New  Brunskick, 

Cape  Breton,  and  Prince  Edward  Island  on  Sunday,  merely 
for  purposes  of  amusement?  With  regard  to  this  query  it 
was  answered  that  the  American  vessels  could  not  be  seized, 
but  might  be  compelled  to  depart. 

3.  Can    American    fishermen    at    Magdalen    Islands    who    interfere 

with  the  rights  of  British  fishermen  in  that  vicinity  be  seized? 
The  law  officers  advised  seizure  only  after  due  warning  be 
given  the  Americans  to  depart. 

4.  Can   American  vessels   enter  harbors   in   Nova   Scotia   in   calm 

weather,  and  then  without  buying  wood  or  water  sail  out  again 
without  seizure?  In  this  case  it  was  advised  that  the  Ameri- 
can vessels  merely  be  compelled  to  depart. 

5.  If  American  vessels  enter  the  three  mile  limit  along  the  coasts  of 

British  North  America  and  then  flee  beyond  it,  can  British 
revenue  cutters  pursue  and  seize  them?  To  this  last  inquiry 
the  law  officers  answered  in  the  affirmative,  but  with  the  ad- 
monition that  this  right  of  seizure  be  "  adopted  only  in  very 
clear  cases  and  with  extreme  caution."  '^ 

From  the  early  part  of  the  year  1852  until  the  signing  of 
the  reciprocity  treaty  on  June  5,  1854,  the  question  of  the 
fisheries  was  constantly  associated  with  that  of  commercial 
reciprocity,  and  in  Congress  a  more  favorable  attitude  to- 
wards a  convention  that  would  settle  these  two  embarrassing 
questions  began  to  manifest  itself.  Mr.  Hincks,  the  Inspec- 
tor-General of  Canada,  was  quite  anxious  to  accelerate  this 
friendly  disposition  on  the  part  of  Congress,  and  in  a  mem- 
orandum sent  by  Lord  Elgin  to  Pakington  on  February  20, 
1852,  he  recommended  that,  pending  the  decision  of  the 

''^  Pakington  to  Elgin,  Canadian  Archives,  August  19,  1852,  Series 
G,  142,  No.  56. 
''"'  Canadian  Archives,  G,  142,  No.  75. 


223]       BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   RECIPROCITY    MOVEMENT  43 

question  of  reciprocity,  the  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence 
River  be  conceded  to  American  bottoms.'*  But,  in  his  in- 
structions to  Lord  Elgin,  May  14,  1852,  Pakington  enclosed 
the  decision  of  the  Foreign  Office  not  to  permit  the  navigation 
of  the  St.  Lawrence  River  by  American  shipping  until  the 
United  States  granted  "  some  equivalent  for  it."  '^ 

Hincks,  however,  was  not  dismayed  at  this  rebuff.  In  a 
later  memorandum  to  Pakington  he  once  more  adverted  to 
the  advisability  of  opening  the  St.  Lawrence  to  American 
shipping,  and  observed  that  it  would  be  a  measure  of  "  great 
popularity  in  Canada."  Also,  it  would  vastly  help  the  Cana- 
dian canals  and  be  the  means  of  securing  "  the  principal  part 
of  the  trade  in  breadstufifs,  and  provisions  for  the  supply  of 
the  fisheries  and  timber  region  in  the  Maritime  Provinces  " 
now  monopolized  by  the  United  States.  In  reply  the  For- 
eign Office  remarked  that  in  the  previous  year  Hincks  had 
been  opposed  to  granting  the  navigation  of  the  St.  Law- 
rence to  American  bottoms  without  some  substantial  equiv- 
alent, and  that  the  Foreign  Office  was  still  of  that  opinion. ''° 

As  we  have  already  seen,  in  the  spring  of  1852  the  colony 
of  Nova  Scotia  made  provision  for  the  maintenance  of  four 
armed  cruisers  in  her  territorial  waters  with  instructions  to 
seize  American  vessels  violating  the  treaty  of  1818,  and  Can- 
ada, Newfoundland,  and  Prince  Edward  Island  decided  to 
cooperate  with  her  in  a  joint  defensive  armament.  This  to- 
gether with  the  announcement  on  the  part  of  the  British  Gov- 
ernment that  it  would  station  "  off  New  Brunswick,  Nova 
Scotia,  Prince  Edward  Island,  and  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Law- 
rence, such  a  force  of  small  sailing  vessels  and  steamers  as 
shall  be  deemed  sufficient  to  prevent  the  infraction  of  the 
treaty,"  created  a  considerable  stir  of  excitement  in  Wash- 
ington.®^ 

Webster   immediately    (July    17,    1852)    wrote   to    Mr. 

"Ibid.,  G,  141,  No.  17. 
"  Ibid.,  G.  141,  No.  23. 

««  Pakington  to  Elgin,  June  30,  1852,  Canadian  Archives,  G,  141, 
No.  40. 
'*  32d  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  22,  pp.  438-439. 


44  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1 854  [^224 

Crampton  inviting  him  to  repair  at  once  to  Boston  to  discuss 
the  whole  question  of  reciprocity,  and  expressing  the  hope 
that  the  seizure  of  American  vessels  would  be  delayed  until 
after  their  conference  upon  the  subject.^^  One  week  later, 
July  25,  Mr.  Webster  made  a  speech  at  Marshfield,  Massa- 
chusetts, relative  to  the  fisheries,  during  the  course  of  which 
he  significantly  remarked: 

The  fishermen  shall  be  protected  in  all  their  rights  of  property, 
and  in  all  their  rights  of  occupation.  To  use  a  Marblehead  phrase, 
they  shall  be  protected  "hook  and  line,  and  bob  and  sinker."  .  .  . 
This  sudden  interruption  of  the  pursuits  of  our  citizens,  which  have 
been  carried  on  more  than  thirty  years  without  interruption  or  mo- 
lestation, can  hardly  be  justified  by  any  principle  or  consideration 
whatever.  ...  It.  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the  United  States  will 
submit  their  rights  to  be  adjudicated  upon  in  the  petty  tribunals  of 
the  provinces;  or  that  we  shall  allow  our  vessels  to  be  seized  on  by 
constables  or  other  petty  officers,  and  condemned  by  the  municipal 
courts  of  Quebec  and  Newfoundland,  New  Brunswick,  or  Canada. 
No,  no,  no !  ^s 

This  question  of  the  fisheries  and  the  related  subject  of 
reciprocity  were  now  lengthily  debated  in  the  Senate.  News 
had  arrived  that  the  naval  force  sent  by  Great  Britain  alone 
amounted  to  13  ships,  one  a  74-gun  frigate,  this  being  in  ad- 
dition to  the  four  vessels  provided  by  the  British  North 
American  provinces.®*  It  was  apparent  to  Senator  Hamlin 
that  this  formidable  fleet  was  much  larger  than  was  necessary 
to  enforce  the  convention  of  1818:  "  It  is  said  that  reciprocal 
trade  between  the  United  States  and  the  British  colonies  is 
thus  to  be  enforced.  If  such  be  the  object  .  .  .  T  will  only 
say,  in  my  opinion,  the  wrong  mode  has  been  adopted  to  se- 
cure the  end  desired."  *" 

Senator  Davis,  of  Massachusetts,  also  believed  that  the 
action  of  Great  Britain  with  regard  to  the  protection  of  fish- 
eries was  done  with  an  ulterior  motive.  "  This  whole  mat- 
ter "  he  was  sure  could  be  "  explained  as  a  stroke  of  policy. 
It  may  be  a  dangerous  step  to  be  taken  by  the  British  Gov- 


®2  Crampton  to  Sir  Alexander  Bannerman,  July  20,  1852,  Canadian 
Archives,  G,  294. 
88  32d  Cong.,  2d  sess..  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  22,  pp.  444-445. 
^*  Cong.  Globe,  32d  Cong.,  ist  sess.,  App.,  p.  902. 
85  Ibid. 


225^'      BEGINNINGS   OF  THE  RECIPROCITY   MOVEMENT  45 

ernment,  and  the  colonies  may  be  playing  a  game  which  will 
not  advance  materially  the  interest  they  have  in  view." 
However,  "if  Great  Britain  wants  a  war,  undoubtedly  she 
can  have  it."  ^® 

To  Senator  Rusk,  of  Texas,  it  seemed  "  that  the  conduct 
of  Great  Britain  in  this  business  should  be  met  promptly,  on 
our  side.  It  is  supposed  by  some  Senators  to  be  designed  to 
bring  about  an  enactment  for  reciprocity  of  trade  on  our  part 
with  the  British  colonies.  If  that  be  so,  I  will  never  give  a 
vote  for  such  a  measure  under  such  circumstances,  no  mat- 
ter what  may  be  the  consequences.  I  will  never  yield  to  any 
threats  made  by  the  British  Government,  and  cannon  will  be 
found  to  be  the  last  available  argument  that  could  be  used."  ^^ 

Mr.  Pratt,  of  Maryland,  was  not  so  impressed  with  the 
argument  that  Great  Britain's  policy  with  regard  to  the  pro- 
tection of  the  fisheries  was  merely  a  stroke  of  policy.  It  ap- 
peared to  him  that  the  British  Government  had  purposely 
adopted  an  uncompromising  attitude,  and  this  might  well 
mean  war.  He  thought  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
"should  not  be  lulled  into  security  about  this  matter.  I 
think  there  is  great  danger  of  collision  with  Great  Britain  In 
regard  to  this  subject.  ...  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  neces- 
sary steps  have  already  been  taken  to  provide  a  sufficient 
naval  force  to  protect  our  seamen  in  what  our  Government 
has  proclaimed  to  be  their  rights ;  and  when  the  naval  force 
of  this  country  goes  there,  I  do  not  see  how  a  collision  is  to 
be  avoided."  ** 

It  was  evident  that  with  the  Senate  in  this  frame  of  mind 
there  was  little  hope  of  any  favorable  action  with  regard  to 
a  commercial  arrangement  with  Canada.  But  Hincks,  the 
Inspector-General,  did  not  at  once  appreciate  this  fact,  and  in 
a  memorandum  enclosed  in  a  despatch  from  Lord  Elgin  to 
Pakington,  September  4,  1852,  he  still  argues  for  commercial 

«« Ibid.,  p.  898. 

*T  Cong.  Globe,  32d  Cong.,  ist  sess.,  July  23,  1852,  vol.  29,  p.  1893. 
"8  Ibid.,  p.  1897. 


46  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY    TREATY    OF    1 854  [226 

concessions  to  the  United  States.  In  his  opinion  free  com- 
mercial intercourse  between  Canada  and  the  neighboring 
states  would  be  mutually  advantageous  to  the  inhabitants  of 
the  two  countries,  and  he  believed  that  the  "commercial 
marine  of  both  should  be  permitted  to  navigate  freely  the 
Rivers  and  Canals  flowing  through  the  British  and  United 
States'  territories."  With  this  object  in  view,  Canada  had 
repealed  all  differential  duties  on  manufactures,  and  had 
granted  the  vessels  of  the  United  States  the  free  use  of  her 
canals  despite  the  fact  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  had  not  met  these  concessions  in  a  like  spirit.  Hincks 
thereupon  observed  that  when  the  President's  late  message 
to  Congress  recommending  reciprocity  was  published  it 
would  have  been  good  policy  on  the  part  of  the  British  Gov- 
ernment to  open  the  St.  Lawrence  River  to  American  ship- 
ping. "  The  adoption  of  such  a  liberal  policy,"  he  believed, 
"  would  have  tended  very  much  to  allay  the  irritation  which 
has  been  caused  by  the  steps  necessarily  and  wisely  adopted 
for  the  protection  of  the  British  Fisheries."  *^ 

As  the  summer  of  1852  progressed,  however,  and  it  be- 
came apparent  that  Congress  would  do  nothing  more  than 
merely  discuss  the  question  of  reciprocity  with  Canada^ 
Hincks  became  quite  restive,  and  the  tone  of  his  memoranda 
underwent  a  radical  change.  In  a  despatch  from  I^rd  El- 
gin to  Pakington,  September  23,  1852,  there  is  a  new  mem- 
orandum from  Hincks  which  clearly  reveals  his  changed  atti- 
tude. He  would  now  have  Canada  adopt  tariff  measures 
favoring  importations  through  the  St.  Lawrence  (that  is, 
British),  and  also  would  charge  American  shipping  passing 
through  only  the  Welland  Canal  the  same  tolls  as  if  they 
passed  through  the  entire  Canadian  canal  system.  He  was 
opposed,  however,  to  any  thought  of  closing  the  Canadian 
canals  to  American  shipping  for  "  such  a  measure  would  be 
injurious  to  the  revenue."®" 

*»  Canadian  Archives,  G,  407 A,  No.  80. 
80  Ibid.,  No.  86. 


22y'2       BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   RECIPROCITY   MOVEMENT  47 

The  growing  hostility  in  Canada  towards  the  United  States, 
because  of  the  failure  of  reciprocal  commercial  legislation  to 
pass  through  Congress,  threatened  to  render  impossible  any 
prospective  legislation  in  this  regard.  Crampton,  the  Brit- 
ish minister  in  Washington,  quickly  perceived  this  danger, 
and  in  a  letter  to  Lord  Elgin,  September  14,  1852,  he  warns 
him  of  the  inexpediency  of  any  retaliatory  measure  on  the 
part  of  the  Canadian  Government.  In  his  opinion  it  would 
be  "clearly  impolitic  in  the  Canadian  Legislature  to  resort 
to  these  measures,"  for,  after  a  recent  conversation  with  the 
President  of  the  United  States  it  appeared  certain  that  he 
was  "  sincerely  desirous  to  settle  all  commercial  questions  be- 
fore he  leaves  the  administration,  and  that  he  really  intends 
to  do  all  that  he  can  towards  effecting  the  engagement  we 
have  so  long  desired.  The  '  Fishery  difficulty '  has  at  least 
had  this  good  effect  that  a  general  feeling  now  prevails  that 
the  whole  of  these  matters  should  be  settled.  The  adoption 
by  Canada  just  now  of  retaliatory  measures  would,  I  think, 
be  injurious,  and  would  favor  the  cry  of  the  opponents  to 
reciprocity  here  that  we  are  trying  to  coerce  the  United  States 
to  negotiate — a  notion  sure  to  find  response  among  the 
*  masses,' "  " 

Some  five  weeks  later,  October  30,  1852,  Pakington,  in 
his  instructions  to  Lord  Elgin,  remarks  that  inasmuch  as 
negotiations  for  a  reciprocity  treaty  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  were  about  to  begin,  the  colonial 
legislatures  of  the  British  provinces  should  not  take  any  ac- 
tive measures  on  the  subject  of  the  fisheries  or  trade,  as  the 
proceedings  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  might  be  em- 
barrassed.®^ 

President  Fillmore,  in  his  third  annual  message,  Decem- 
ber 6,  1852,  adverted  to  the  friction  between  the  United 


"  Elgin  to  Pakington,  Sept.  23,  1852,  Canadian  Archives,  G,  407 A, 
Confidentiat. 
•2  Canadian  Archives,  G,  142. 


48  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1854  [|228 

States  and  the  British  North  American  colonies  relative  to 
the  fisheries,  and  observed  as  follows: 

It  was  at  first  apprehended  that  an  increased  naval  force  had  been 
ordered  (by  Great  Britain)  to  the  fishing  grounds  to  carry  into  effect 
the  British  interpretation  of  the  provisions  in  the  convention  of 
1818  in  reference  to  the  true  intent  of  which  the  two  Governments 
differ.  It  was  soon  discovered  that  such  was  not  the  design  of 
Great  Britain,  and  satisfactory  explanations  of  the  real  objects  of 
the  measure  have  been  given  both  here  and  in  London.  .  .  .  These 
circumstances  .  .  .  have  led  me  to  think  the  moment  favorable  for  a 
reconsideration  of  the  entire  subject  of  the  fisheries  on  the  coasts 
of  the  British  Provinces.  ...  A  willingness  to  meet  us  in  some  ar- 
rangement of  this  kind  is  understood  to  exist  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain  with  a  desire  on  her  part  to  include  in  one  comprehensive 
settlement  as  well  this  subject  as  the  commercial  intercourse  between 
the  United  St.ates  and  the  British  Provinces.  ...  If  it  is  foimd  prac- 
ticable to  come  to  an  agreement  mutually  acceptable  to  the  two 
parties,  conventions  may  be  concluded  in  the  course  of  the  present 
winter.8* 

Congress  did  not  appear  to  be  in  any  great  hurry  to  con- 
sider measures  looking  towards  reciprocity  with  Canada,  and 
it  was  not  until  February  5,  1853,  that  Mr.  Davis,  of  Massa- 
chusetts, introduced  in  the  Senate  a  bill  having  that  end  in 
view.^*  According  to  this  bill  it  was  provided  that  "  when- 
ever the  President  of  the  United  States  shall  receive  satis- 
factory evidence  that  the  fishermen  and  fishing  vessels  of  the 
United  States  are  admitted  to  the  common  rights  and  privi- 
leges of  British  subjects  resident  in  those  provinces  to  fish 
in  the  waters  thereof  and  adjacent  thereto,  together  with  the 
right  of  curing  and  preparing  for  the  market  the  proceeds  of 
such  fisheries,  both  upon  the  water  and  the  land,  then  he 
shall  issue  his  proclamation  authorizing  the  fishermen  and 
fishing  vessels  of  said  provinces  to  enjoy  like  privileges  in 
the  waters  of  the  United  States,  together  with  the  privilege 
of  entering  the  ports  of  entry  in  the  United  States  and  mak- 
ing sale  of  fish  and  the  proceeds  of  the  fisheries  upon  the 
payment  of  the  same  duties,  which  are  required  by  law  of 
the  fishing  vessels  and  their  cargoes  belonging  to  the  United 
States."  »» 

»'  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  v,  pp.  163-164. 
**Cong.  Globe,  32d  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  vol.  26,  p.  514;  s«e  S.  Bill  609. 
»*  32d  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  S.  Bill  609. 


229]       BEGINNINGS   OF  THE  RECIPROCITY   MOVEMENT  49 

On  February  12,  1853,  this  bill  was  reported  and  a  strong 
fight  at  once  arose  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  measure. 
Mr.  Davis  anticipated  but  little  opposition  to  the  passage  of 
the  bill.  He  believed  that  no  Senator  could  have  "  any  ob- 
jection to  it  at  all "  and  he  was  desirous  of  having  it  speedily 
passed  and  sent  to  the  House."^  But  it  very  soon  developed 
that  Mr.  Mallory,  of  Florida,  had  very  serious  objections  to 
the  bill,  and  was  prepared  to  dispute  its  passage.  He  had 
"  a  proper  regard  not  only  for  the  pecuniary  interest  of  the 
vast  capital  embarked  in  our  northern  fisheries,  but  for  the 
safety  of  our  fishermen  and  the  maintenance  of  the  friendly 
relations  which  existed  between  us  and  the  British  North 
American  Provinces."  He  wished,  however,  to  remind  the 
Senate  that  "there  are  other  and  higher  considerations  in- 
volved in  this  bill — considerations  far  above  all  pecuniary 
interest."  To  him  it  was  apparent  that  the  proposed  bill  con- 
tained the  most  patent  "  political  heresy."  From  whence  did 
the  General  Government  derive  the  right  to  cede  to  a  foreign 
power  the  property  of  the  States  in  their  fisheries  ?  By  what 
authority  did  the  Federal  Government  "  pretend  to  admit 
foreign  vessels  and  crews  not  only  within  the  waters  and 
jurisdiction  of  a  state,  to  take  fish  which  belong  exclusively 
to  a  state,  but  to  legislate  them  on  the  land,  and  within  the 
body  of  the  county  of  a  State?"" 

Mr.  Bayard,  of  Delaware,  immediately  supported  Mr. 
Mallory  in  his  defense  of  States*  Rights,  and  proposed  an 
amendment  which  had  been  suggested  to  him  by  Mr.  Ham- 
lin, of  Maine.  The  siibstance  of  this  amendment  was  that 
the  pending  bill  should  be  so  modified  that  the  reciprocal  fish- 
ing rights  under  discussion  should  not  extend  below  the  40th 
parallel  of  north  latitude.®*  But  even  this  compromise  could 
not  influence  a  majority  of  the  Senate  to  favor  a  reciprocal 
arrangement  with  Canada,  so  the  measure  failed  to  pass. 

*"  Cong.  Globe,  326  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  582. 

•»  Ibid.,  p.  953. 

••  Ibid.,  pp.  956-957. 


50  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1854  [[230 

In  the  House  of  Representatives  the  bill  providing  for 
reciprocity  suffered  a  similar  fate.  On  February  ii,  1853, 
Mr.  Seymour,  of  New  York,  introduced  a  bill  providing  that 
whenever  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  agreed  to  ex- 
tend to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  the  right  to  take 
and  cure  fish  of  every  kind  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  and 
on  the  coasts  of  Newfoundland,  Nova  Scotia,  Cape  Breton, 
New  Brunswick,  and  Prince  Edward  Island,  together  with 
the  right  to  navigate  the  St.  Lawrence  and  St.  John  rivers 
and  the  Canadian  system  of  canals,  then  the  President  of  the 
United  States  should  issue  a  proclamation  admitting  into  the 
United  States  free  of  duty  certain  enumerated  articles  being 
of  the  growth,  production  or  manufacture  of  the  British 
North  American  provinces.  At  the  same  time  the  British 
North  American  provinces  were  to  reciprocate  by  admitting 
free  of  duty  an  identical  list  of  enumerated  articles.^® 

It  is  significant  that  Mr.  Seymour's  bill  makes  no  mention 
of  extending  to  the  citizens  of  the  British  North  American 
provinces  any  fishing  rights  in  American  waters.  Mr.  Ful- 
ler, of  Maine,  at  once  hastened  to  attack  the  proposed  bill  of 
Mr.  Seymour  on  the  ground  that  it  would  operate  particu- 
larly in  favor  of  the  "  manufacturing  interest,  the  cities,  and 
railroads."  ^°°  Mr.  Fuller  then  introduced  a  bill  which  was 
practically  identical  with  the  bill  introduced  in  the  Senate  by 
Mr.  Davis.  It  simply  provided  that  whenever  the  fishermen 
and  fishing  vessels  of  the  United  States  were  admitted  to  the 
common  rights  of  British  subjects  in  the  British  North 
American  provinces,  then  the  President  should  issue  a  proc- 
lamation authorizing  the  fishermen  and  fishing  vessels  of  the 
said  provinces  to  enjoy  like  privileges  in  the  waters  of  the 
United  States. ^°^  It  was  worthy  of  note  that  there  was  not 
one  word  about  reciprocity  in  enumerated  articles  of  pro- 
duction. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  neither  of  the  two  bills  had  very  much 

09  Ibid.,  vol.  26,  pp.  567-568;  H.  Bill  360. 
1°°  Congf.  Globe,  32d  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  777. 
101 32d  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  H.  Res.  No.  361. 


231]       BEGINNINGS   OF   THE  RECIPROCITY   MOVEMENT  5I 

show  of  passing  through  Congress.  Mr.  Seymour's  meas- 
ure aroused  the  fears  of  the  protectionists,  while  the  bill  in- 
troduced by  Mr.  Fuller  was  in  direct  conflict  with  the  doc- 
trine of  States'  Rights  so  dear  to  the  heart  of  the  Southern 
delegation.  As  a  result,  there  was  no  serious  attempt  to 
enact  any  kind  of  reciprocity  legislation  during  that  session 
of  Congress.^"^  Thus  the  question  was  postponed  until  the 
new  administration  under  President  Pierce  took  office,  and 
thereafter  the  whole  affair  passed  out  of  the  hands  of  Con- 
gress and  was  handled  by  the  new  and  vigorous  Secretary  of 
State,  William  L.  Marcy. 

When  Mr.  Marcy  entered  upon  his  official  duties  on  March 
8>  1853,  our  relations  with  the  British  North  American  prov- 
inces were  each  day  growing  more  strained,  the  "fisheries 
question"  being  the  most  disturbing  factor.  As  already 
described,  in  the  spring  and  summer  of  1852,  the  British 
Government  decided  to  cooperate  with  the  colonial  govern- 
ments in  protecting  the  inshore  fisheries,  and  a  delicate  situ- 
ation arose.  On  August  7,  1852,  Mr.  Abbott  Lawrence, 
the  American  minister  to  the  Court  of  St.  James,  had  an 
interview  with  the  Earl  of  Malmesbury  relative  to  the  vio- 
lation of  American  rights.  Malmesbury  assured  Lawrence 
that  there  was  no  special  animus  behind  the  action  of  the 
British  Government  in  assisting  the  colonies  to  patrol  their 
coasts,  and  that  there  was  not  the  slightest  intention  "to 
give  offence  either  to  the  Government  or  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States."^"*  Lawrence  was  certain  that  the  British 
Government  felt  that  they  had  "committed  an  error"  in 
ordering  a  large  naval  force  to  colonial  waters,  without  giv- 
ing a  reasonable  notice  to  the  United  States,  and  he  believed 
that  they  were  "  willing  to  do  everything  in  their  power  to 
allay  excitement."  ^°* 

The  desire  to  placate  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  is  clearly  illustrated  in  the  instructions  of  Lord  Mal- 

"2  Cong.  Globe,  32d  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  vol.  26,  pp.  824,  979,  1154. 
^°8  33d  Cong.,  special  sess.,  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  3,  Mar  4-Apr.  11, 
1853,  pp.  2-3. 
"*  Ibid.,  p.  4. 


52  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1854  (^232 

mesbury  to  Mr.  Crampton,  August  lo,  1852.  Mr.  Cramp- 
ton  was  instructed  to  assure  Mr.  Webster,  and  through  him 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  "that  her  Majesty's 
Government  continues  to  feel  the  same  anxiety  that  has  long 
been  felt  in  this  country  for  the  maintenance  of  the  best  re- 
lations between  the  two  governments,  and  it  will  be  to  them 
a  source  of  sincere  satisfaction  if  the  attention  which  has 
thus  been  drawn  to  the  subject  of  the  fisheries  should  lead 
to  an  adjustment,  by  amicable  negotiations,  upon  a  more 
satisfactory  footing  than  at  present,  of  the  system  of  com- 
mercial intercourse  between  the  United  States  and  her  Maj- 
esty's North  American  colonial  possessions."^"" 

Mr.  Webster,  who  as  Secretary  of  State  had  conducted 
the  fishery  negotiations,  was  fast  failing  in  health,  and  on 
July  26,  1852,  he  wrote  to  President  Fillmore  relative  to  re- 
signing his  office  at  once  because  of  his  inability  to  stand 
another  summer  in  Washington.^"®  President  Fillmore,  how- 
ever, earnestly  desired  Webster  to  remain  in  office,  and  in- 
timated that  he  need  visit  Washington  only  when  his  health 
might  permit.^°^  But  the  end  was  much  closer  than  any 
one  had  dreamed.  Early  in  October  Mr.  Webster  was  con- 
fined to  his  bed,  and  on  the  24th  of  the  month  he  died.^°^ 
His  illness  and  death  naturally  delayed  any  settlement  of 
the  fisheries  question,  and  it  was  not  until  December  4, 
1852,  that  the  new  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Edward  Ever- 
ett, wrote  to  Mr.  Ingersoll,  the  American  charge  d'affaires 
at  London,  with  regard  to  both  the  fisheries  and  to  commer- 
cial reciprocity.  Mr.  Everett  expressed  the  satisfaction  of 
the  government  of  the  United  States  at  the  pacific  attitude 
adopted  by  the  British  Government  and  remarked  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Some  progress  was  made  by  Mr.  Webster  before 
his  death  in  preparation  to  negotiate  with  Mr.  Crampton 

»5  Ibid.,  p.  8. 

"6  Geo.  T.  Curtis,  Life  of  Daniel  Webster   (N.  Y.,  1870),  pp. 
646-649. 
"» Ibid.,  p.  649. 
»•»  Ibid.,  pp.  680-705. 


2333       BEGINNINGS   OF  THE  RECIPROCITY   MOVEMENT  53 

on  the  fisheries,  and  on  the  subject  which  the  colonies  and 
Great  Britain  are  desirous  of  connecting  with  it — I  mean 
commercial  reciprocity  between  the  United  States  and  the 
British  provinces.  The  President  is  still  desirous  that  this 
negotiation  should  proceed,  and  it  will  be  taken  up  as  soon 
as  possible.  He  is,  however,  of  opinion,  as  the  two  sub- 
jects have  no  natural  or  necessary  connexion,  that  it  will 
not  be  advisable  to  endeavor  to  include  them  both  in  one 
treaty."  ^^« 

^'  32d  Cong.,  special  sess.,  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  3,  pp.  9-10. 


CHAPTER  III 
The  Conclusion  of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty 

During  the  last  two  months  of  the  Fillmore  administra- 
tion nothing  was  done  relative  to  effecting  a  settlement  of 
either  the  fisheries  or  the  reciprocity  question.  On  March 
8,  1853,  William  L.  Marcy  entered  upon  the  duties  of  Sec- 
retary of  State  in  the  cabinet  of  President  Pierce,^  and  im- 
mediately began  an  earnest  consideration  of  these  two  ques- 
tions which  were  each  day  becoming  more  important.  The 
new  administration  was  determined  to  protect  as  far  as  pos- 
sible the  rights  of  American  fishermen,  and  in  the  early 
part  of  July,  1853,  James  C.  Dobbin,  Secretary  of  the  Navy, 
issued  orders  to  concentrate  a  small  naval  force  at  Ports- 
mouth, New  Hampshire.  The  purpose  of  such  a  concen- 
tration was  to  afford  "  protection  to  such  of  our  citizens  as 
are  there  engaged  in  the  fisheries,"  and  Commodore  W.  B. 
Shubrick  was  placed  in  command.^ 

The  following  instructions  to  Shubrick,  dated  July  14, 
1853,  were  significant: 

Reposing  confidence  in  your  judgment,  prudence,  and  patriotism, 
the  Navy  Department  sends  you  on  a  mission  involving  the  dis- 
charge of  delicate  and  responsible  duties  bearing  at  once  on  the  pro- 
tection of  rights  and  the  preservation  of  peace.  Information  has 
reached  the  Government  of  the  United  States  that  her  Britannic 
Majesty's  Government  has  stationed  off  New  Brunswick,  Nova 
Scotia,  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  at  other  points  along  the 
coast  of  British  American  possessions,  a  considerable  force  of  war 
steamers  and  sailing  vessels,  under  the  command  of  Sir  George 
Seymour,  fully  armed  and  manned ;  that  this  array  of  naval  strength 
is  alleged  to  be  destined  for  service  in  protecting  the  rights  of  Brit- 
ish subjects,  and  preventing  the  apprehended  encroachments  of 
American  citizens  upon  the  "  fishing  grounds "  reserved  to  Great 
Britain  by  the  convention  of  1818,  as  interpreted  by  her  Majesty's 
Government;  that  a  large  class  of  enterprising  and  worthy  citizens 
in  the  New  England  States  have  become  apprehensive  that  there  is 

133d  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  H.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  21,  pp.  z-3. 
2  Ibid. 

54 


2353  CONCLUSION    OF    THE   RECIPROCITY    TREATY  55 

a  settled  purpose  to  disturb  them  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  fishing 
privileges,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  naval  force  of  the  United  States 
in  that  region,  armed  vessels  have  gone  out  with  crews  prepared  to 
take  the  defence  of  their  rights  in  their  own  hands. 

In  view  of  these  circumstances,  with  a  desire  to  quiet  the  public 
mind  and  furnish  every  assurance  that  the  rights  reserved  to  our 
citizens  under  the  treaty  of  1818  shall  be  promptly  and  sacredly  pro- 
tected, and  the  further  desire  to  prevent  collision,  and  promote  fidel- 
ity to  treaty  stipulations,  the  Executive  of  the  United  States  has  con- 
cluded to  send  a  naval  force  to  cruise  in  the  seas  and  bays  frequented 
by  our  fishermen.  .  .  . 

If  on  any  occasion  you  discover  attempts  making  to  deprive  any  of 
our  citizens  of  their  just  rigbts,  you  will  respectfully  but  firmly  re- 
monstrate, and  if  persisted  in,  you  will  take  such  steps  as  in  your 
judgment  will  be  best  calculated  to  check  and  prevent  such  interfer- 
ence ;  never  resorting  to  violence  except  as  a  matter  of  self  defence 
and  necessity.^ 

Early  in  July,  1853,  it  was  very  evident  to  John  G. 
Crampton,  the  British  minister  at  Washington,  that  affairs 
were  fast  reaching  a  critical  stage.  American  fishing  ves- 
sels were  arming  for  any  possible  contingency,  and  an 
American  naval  squadron  was  about  to  repair  to  the  coasts 
of  the  British  North  American  provinces  for  the  express 
purpose  of  protecting  American  rights.  Inasmuch  as  the 
British  view  of  American  fishing  rights  was  sharply  at  vari- 
ance with  that  held  by  the  Americans  themselves,  a  colli- 
sion between  the  naval  forces  of  the  two  countries  might 
occur  at  any  moment.  Crampton,  after  several  conversa- 
tions with  Marcy,  decided  that  it  would  be  good  policy  to 
visit  Halifax  and  consult  with  the  British  Admiral,  Sir 
George  Seymour,  relative  to  the  seizure  of  American  ves- 
sels. Undue  pressure  on  the  part  of  the  British  Admiral 
would  be  plainly  impolitic* 

After  Crampton's  return  from  Halifax,  he  and  Marcy,  in 
the  latter  part  of  July,  repaired  to  Berkeley  Springs,  Vir- 
ginia, to  discuss  the  projet  of  a  treaty  that  would  compre- 
hend both  the  fisheries  and  the  commercial  reciprocity  ques- 
tions. Through  the  kindness  of  Mrs.  Edith  Marcy  Sperry 
and  Prof.  Charles  S.  Sperry,  of  Boulder,  Colorado,  the 
record  of  these  conferences,  contained  in  one  of  Marcy's 

•Ibid.,  pp.  3-7. 

♦  Crampton  to  Marcy,  July  3,  1853,  Marcy  Papers,  MS.,  vol.  xxxix. 


56  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1 854  [^236 

diaries,  is  presented  here  for  the  first  time.     Because  of  its 
evident  value,  the  record  will  be  given  in  full. 

Berkeley  Springs,  Va.,  Aug.  i,  1853. 

This  day  I  resumed  negotiations  with  Mr.  Crampton,  the  British 
Minister,  on  a  Treaty  concerning  the  Fisheries  on  the  Coasts  of  the 
British  N.  A.  provinces  and  a  reciprocal  free  Trade  between  the  U. 
S.  and  her  B.  M.  N.  A.  Provinces.  We  had  before  us  sketches  of  a 
convention  embracing  these  subjects.  The  conference  was  opened 
by  reading  over  and  comparing  the  two  sketches;  one  prepared  by 
Mr.  Everett  and  Mr.  Filhnore,  and  the  other  by  the  B.  Gov't.  In 
the  British  profit  there  was  this  clause  in  the  first  article :  provided 
that  in  occupying  and  using  the  shore,  etc.,  Am.  Fishermen  should 
not  interfere  "  with  the  operations  of  Brit.  Fishermen,"  which  was 
objected  to  as  too  indefinite  and  difficulties  might  arise  in  the  con- 
struction of  it.  I  propose  to  substitute  the  following:  'Or  with 
British  Fishermen  in  the  free  and  Peaceable  use  of  any  part  of  said 
coasts  in  their  occupancy  for  the  same  purpos\e" 

After  some  discussion  on  the  subject  the  alteration  seemed  to  meet 
with  the  assent  of  Mr.  Crampton. 

The  second  article  gives  to  British  Fishermen  the  same  right  to 
fish,  etc.,  on  the  coasts  of  the  U.  S.  with  liberty  to  come,  etc.,  on  our 
shores. 

The  third  article  relates  to  reciprocad  free  trade  between  the  U. 
S.  and  the  B.  N.  A.  Provinces  in  the  natural  productions  of  each. 
There  is  in  it  an  enumeration  of  the  products,  etc.,  to  which  this 
article  applies.  The  great  difficulty  in  negotiating  the  Treaty  has 
been  to  agree  upon  the  list  of  products. 

Mr.  Crampton  urges  the  insertion  on  the  list  of  the  following 
articles,  viz.:  Coal,  Metals, — Skins,  pelts  and  tails  to  which  I  have 
objected. 

Coal.  In  some  respects  the  admission  of  N.  Scotia  coal  into  the 
U.  S.  free  of  duty  would  be  advantageous.  It  is  bituminous — much 
more  so  than  any  yet  discovered  in  the  U.  S.  and  is  therefore  pre- 
ferred by  the  manufacturers  of  gas  to  any  kind  of  coal  found  in 
any  part  of  the  U.  S.  A.  Large  interest  daily  and  rapidly  increas- 
ing would  be  benefited  by  retaining  this  article  on  the  schedule.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  apprehended  that  the  states  on  the  Atlantic  in 
which  coal  abounds  and  especially  bituminous  coal,  will  be  opposed 
to  removing  the  duty  upon  the  coal  imported  from  Nova  Scotia. 

It  is  believed  that  Pennsylvania  (the  greatest  coal  state  in  the 
Union)  will'  not  be  much  opposed  to  this  feature  in  the  treaty  for 
two  reasons :  First,  it  has  not  much  bituminous  coal — the  only  kind 
which  comes  in  competition  with  that  of  Nova  Scotia  in  our  market 
on  the  Atlantic  border.  The  free  introduction  of  coal  into  the  B.  N. 
A.  Provinces,  particularly  Canada,  would  create  a  good  demand  for 
the  anthracite  coal  of  that  state.  The  demand  for  that  kind  of  coal 
in  Canada,  now  considerable,  is  rapidly  increasing,  and  will  soon  be 
very  great;  the  principal  source  of  supply  is  in  Pennsylvania.  In 
balancing  the  amount  of  advantage  and  disadvantage  I  have  no 
doubt  that  so  far  as  Pennsylvania  is  concerned  the  former  would 
greatly  preponderate  over  the  latter,  but  with  Maryland  and  Vir- 
ginia I  fear  an  opposite  result,  and  from  these  states  there  would 


237] 


CONCLUSION    OF    THE    RECIPROCITY    TREATY  57 


probably  be  strenuous  objections  to  the  admission  of  N.  S.  coal  duty 
free.  I  have  been  told  the  Cumberland  coal  is  preferable  for  the 
use  of  steam  vessels  and  much  of  it  is  now  used  by  the  B(ritish) 
steamers.  Before  the  treaty  is  closed  it  will  be  proper  to  get  more 
accurate  information  as  to  this  fact. 

August  2d.  I  met  Mr.  C.  again  and  we  spent  about  two  hours  in 
general  discussions  on  the  various  provisions  of  the  Treaty,  par- 
ticularly on  the  list  of  articles  to  be  inserted  on  the  free  list.  We 
agreed  to  insert  several  new  ones  in  it,  Lard,  Rice,  etc.  To  these 
(except  Sugar  un-refined)  Mr.  C.  did  not  make  any  objection,  but 
1  do  not  believe  he  will  admit  any  of  them  until  he  learns  the  views 
of  the  home  government. 

I  learned  from  him  in  this  interview  that  he  had  written  to  Ld. 
Clarendon  for  instructions  on  the  propositions  which  I  had  pre- 
viously submitted  to  him,  viz. :  to  exempt  the  coasts  of  Florida  from 
the  privilege  of  B.  subjects  to  fish  on  our  Coasts  and  to  extend  the 
provisions  of  the  Treaty  to  the  Pacific  Coast.  It  is  evident  that  Mr. 
C.  does  not  see  any  serious  objections  but  will  not  assent  to  these 
propositions  until  he  is  instructed  to  do  so.  He  is  daily  expecting 
a  reply  to  his  communication  to  the  home  government. 

In  this  interview  Mr.  C.  read  to  me  (in  confidence)  his  instructions 
from  Ld.  John  Russell.  It  does  not  appear  from  them  that  any 
point  we  object  to  is  made  a  sine  qua  non,  but  he  is  directed  to  in- 
sist upon  retaining  coal  on  the  list  and  to  getting  the  bounty  to  our 
Fishermen  removed  and  the  registry  of  B.  built  vessels  when  they 
become  the  proi>erty  of  American  Citizens. 

These  are,  in  trutii,  the  only  obstacles  to  the  immediate  conclusion 
of  the  Treaty — the  Coal,  Registry,  and  Bounty.  On  this  day  he 
handed  to  me  a  long  printed  paper  being  a  communication  from  the 
Board  of  Trade  commenting  much  at  large  on  the  provisions  of  the 
projet  of  this  treaty  and  presenting  other  matters  in  regard  to  com- 
merce between  these  two  countries  with  a  view  to  have  some  of 
them  introduced  into  this  treaty. 

This  communication  went  fully  into  our  commercial  relations 
with  G.  B.  After  our  interview  I  read  it  carefully  and  prepared 
myself  to  remark  on  it  at  our  next  meeting. 

Wednesday,  3d  August.  I  met  Mr.  C.  at  11  o'clock  at  our  room 
where  we  resumed  our  conferences.  I  objected  to  embracing  the 
new  matters  contained  in  the  printed  instructions  into  this  negotia- 
tion and  Mr.  C.  seemed  to  be  willing  to  pass  them  by.  We  then  dis- 
cussed the  articles  on  the  list  and  added  several  to  them — to  wit, 
Lard,  Rice,  Stone,  Unwrought  Marble,  etc.  To  these  Mr.  C.  did  not 
make  any  objection  but  as  he  had  no  specific  instructions  in  regard 
to  them  he  did  not  explicitly  agree  to  their  insertion :  but  to  sugar 
unrefined  he  strenuously  objected  on  two  grounds:  ist  sugar  was  an 
article  on  which  the  colonies  levied  an  impost  duty  and  if  admitted 
free  from  the  U.  S.  they  would  be  obliged  to  give  up  that  duty. 
This  would  be  a  change  in  this  financial  system  to  which  they  could 
not  consent,  2d  it  would  be  impossible  to  distinguish  between  sugar 
of  American  growth  and  that  which  was  imported  into  the  U.  S.  and 
taken  thence  to  the  Provinces  and  entered  as  a  product  of  the  U. 
States.  The  discussion  of  these  matters  consumed  our  interview 
on  the  3d  of  August.  The  meeting  arranged  for  the  4th  of  Augst. 
was  deferred  until  the  next  day.    Mr.  I.  D.  Andrews  having  arrived 


58  CANADIAN   RECIPROCITY  TREATY   OF    1854  [238 

on  the  eveaing  of  the  3d  I  spent  most  of  the  4th  with  him  and  in 
examining  documents  and  statistics  which  he  with  Great  labor 
prepared.^ 

In  the  early  part  of  August,  1853,  Marcy  returned  to 
Washington,  and  at  once  wrote  to  Edward  Everett,  who, 
under  the  Fillmore  administration,  had  immediately  preceded 
him  as  Secretary  of  State,  and  requested  his  advice  with 
regard  to  the  pending  reciprocity  negotiations  with  Great 
Britain.  Marcy  was  particularly  interested  in  the  attitude 
of  Great  Britain  relative  to  the  admission  of  British  built 
ships  to  American  registry,  and  the  payment  by  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  of  bounties  to  American  fisher- 
men. In  his  answering  letter,  Everett  not  only  discusses 
those  two  important  questions,  but  also  the  extension  by 
Great  Britain  to  American  citizens  of  the  liberty  to  take 
fish  along  the  coasts  of  British  Northwest  America,  and 
the  possible  dangers  of  including  coal  in  the  free  list  of  the 
treaty.    Under  date  of  August  15th,  he  wrote: 

I  think  on  general  principles  it  would  be  highly  expedient  to  pro- 
vide for  fishing  reciprocity  on  the  Pacific;  but  how  it  would  bear 
on  immediate  interests,  I  have  no  knowledge.  We  shall  fill  up  so 
much  faster  than  they  will  in  British  Pacific  America  that  the  ad- 
vantage can  hardly  fail  to  be  on  our  side.  We  shall  send  ten  fisher- 
men to  their  waters  for  one  they  will  send  to  ours. 

Florida  is  warmly  opposed  to  having  the  reciprocity  extend  to  her 
coasts,  and  I  presume  it  is  quite  desirable  to  exempt  them  if  possible. 
It  cannot  be  of  any  great  importance  to  the  British  if  you  let  Cramp- 
ton  understand, — what  I  am  told  is  the  case — that  the  opposition 
grows  otit  of  jealousies  connected  with  Slavery,  and  not  from  any 
wish  to  contract  their  enjoyment  of  reciprocal  fishing  privileges, 
he  will  not,  I  think,  object  to  the  exemption. 

Now  with  respect  to  the  points  on  which  you  are  at  issue.  I  do 
not  think  you  can  give  way  on  the  subject  of  Registry.  I  was  at 
first  disposed  to  risk  it,  and  got  some  opinions  from  practical  men 
at  the  last  in  favor  of  it;  but,  on  further  inquiry,  I  was  satisfied 
that  the  Shipping  interest  would  not  stand  it.  I  mean  the  ^ip-build- 
ing  interest.  I  believe  they  underrate  their  capacity  to  compete  with 
the  Provinces,  but  these  are  things  that  cannot  be  forced.  I  wrote 
a  private  letter  to  Lord  Aberdeen  telling  him  that  it  was  at  present 
out  of  the  question  to  admit  their  vessels  to  registry. 

With  regard  to  the  Bounty.  I  am  under  the  impression  that  it  is 
of  very  little  consequence.  Our  deputy  collector  here  last  autumn 
(who  understood  the  subject  thoroughly)  told  me  that  it  did  not 
pay  for  the  trouble  of  having  the  papers  made  out,  and  in  man> 
cases  was  not  claimed  by  the  parties  entitled  to  it. 

5  Marcy  MS.,  Diary,  pp.  1-12. 


239^  CONCLUSION    OF    THE    RECIPROCITY    TREATY  59 

With  regard  to  Coal,  I  think  our  Penna.  and  Virginia  friends 
stand  in  their  own  light  in  refusing  to  admit  it  into  the  free  list. 
Certainly  the  Pennsylvanians  do,  for  the  Province  coal  is  a  different 
affair  from  the  Penna.  anthracite,  and  used  for  different  purposes. 
We  shall  very  soon  send  more  coal  into  upper  Canada  than  we  im- 
port from  Nova  Scotia. 

My  impression  is,  at  present,  that  you  may,  without  danger,  give 
up  the  bounties,  though  I  reserve  the  right  of  changing  this  opinion. 
The  subject  was  not  discussed  between  Crampton  and  me.  That  if 
you  cannot  help  it  you  may  give  way  on  coal,  though  this  will  cost 
votes  from  Penna.  and  Virginia  when  the  convention  and  the  law  to 
execute  it  are  before  Congress;  and  that  you  cannot  admit  their 
ships  to  registry.  Crampton  will  tell  you,  if  you  do  not,  that  they 
will  be  obliged  to  take  from  us  the  registry  we  now  enjoy,  with 
them ;  but  I  doubt  if  they  would,  and  I  do  not  think  our  shipbuilders 
would  care  much  if  they  did.  But  few  of  our  vessels  thus  far,  have 
been  sold  in  England.^ 

Marcy  was  evidently  impressed  by  the  counsel  of  Everett, 
SO  on  September  i,  1853,  he  addressed  a  note  to  Mr.  Cramp- 
ton and  enclosed  a  projet  of  a  treaty  which  dealt  only  with 
reciprocal  fishing  rights,  commercial  reciprocity,  and  the 
navigation  by  American  citizens  of  the  St.  Lawrence  river 
and  the  Canadian  canals.  There  was  no  mention  of  either 
the  question  of  registry  or  of  bounties.  In  article  one  of 
the  British  projet,  which  had  been  discussed  in  the  August 
conferences  at  Berkeley  Springs,  there  was  a  clause  that 
read:  "Provided,  that  in  occupying  and  using  the  shore  the 
American  fishermen  should  not  interfere  with  the  opera- 
tions of  British  fishermen."  In  article  one  of  the  projet 
submitted  by  Marcy  on  September  i,  1853,  this  clause  was 
amended  so  as  to  read :  "  Provided,  that  in  so  doing  they  do 
not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  private  property,  or  with 
British  fishermen  in  the  peaceable  use  of  any  part  of  said 
coast  in  their  occupancy."  In  all  previous  projets  the  is- 
land of  Newfoundland  had  been  omitted  with  reference  to 
the  liberty  of  American  citizens  to  catch  and  cure  fish.  In 
article  one  of  the  projet  of  September  i,  1853,  Newfound- 
land was  expressly  included  in  the  enumeration  of  the  Brit- 
ish provinces  along  the  coasts  of  which  Americans  were  to 
enjoy  fishing  liberties. 

8  Everett  to  Marcy,  Aug.  15,  1853,  Marcy  Papers,  MS.,  vol,  xli. 


60  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1 854  ^240 

Article  two  of  the  pro  jet  of  September  ist  is  merely  an 
expression  of  both  Marcy's  and  Everett's  views  as  to  the 
expediency  of  exempting  the  coasts  of  Florida  from  any 
reciprocal  fishing  privileges  provided  for  under  the  treaty. 
According  to  this  article,  "  British  subjects  shall  have  in 
\  common  with  the  citizens  of  the  U.  S.,  the  liberty  to  take 

fish  of  every  kind,  except  shellfish,  on  the  coast  and  shores 
of  the  U.  S.  (except  the  coasts  of  the  State  of  Florida  and 
the  adjacent  islands)  .  .  .  and  in  the  bays,  harbors,  and 
creeks  of  the  U.  S.  and  of  the  said  islands,  without  being 
restricted  to  any  distance  from  the  shore;  with  permission 
to  land  upon  the  coasts  of  the  U.  S.  and  of  the  islands  afore- 
said (except  the  coast  of  Florida  and  the  adjacent  islands), 
for  the  purpose  of  drying  their  nets  and  curing  their  fish." ' 

Article  three  is  also  an  embodiment  of  one  of  Marcy's 
ideas  that  was  approved  by  Everett.  According  to  it  the 
citizens  and  subjects  of  the  high  contracting  parties  shall 
enjoy  the  liberty  of  taking  and  curing  fish  along  "the  coasts 
of  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  in  the  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks 
of  the  said  possessions ;  and  on  the  coasts  and  shores  of  the 
adjacent  islands  belonging  to  either  party,  without  being 
restricted  to  any  distance  from  the  shores." 

With  regard  to  the  free  list,  the  pro  jet  of  September  ist 
contained  many  new  and  important  features.  First  of  all, 
manufactures  of  every  kind  and  books  were  excluded. 
Then  in  deference  to  Southern  interests,  rice,  tar,  pitch,  and 
turpentine  were  added.  Furs  were  included  as  a  concession 
to  the  provinces,  for  which  Marcy  believed  some  equivalent 
should  be  offered.  But  next  to  manufactures,  the  most  im- 
portant omission  from  the  free  list  was  coal.  Marcy  was 
fearful  that  if  it  were  admitted  duty  free,  not  only  Pennsyl- 
vania, but  also  Virginia  and  Maryland  would  stir  up  so 
much  opposition  that  the  treaty  would  never  pass  the  Sen- 
ate.    As  an  inducement  to  the  British  provinces  to  agree  to 

■^  U.  S.  For.  Rel.,  1873,  pt  2,  pp.  295-297  (Wash.  1874) . 


241]]  CONCLUSION    OF    THE   RECIPROCITY    TREATY  6I 

this  omission,  Marcy  failed  to  include  in  the  free  list  either 
leaf  tobacco  or  unrefined  sugar.* 

President  Pierce  appeared  to  take  special  interest  in  push- 
ing these  reciprocity  negotiations  to  a  successful  conclusion, 
so  in  the  early  part  of  September,  1853,  Israel  D.  Andrews 
was  appointed  special  agent  for  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment to  "visit  the  North  American  colonies  for  the  pur- 
pose of  obtaining  ...  all  the  information  in  your  power 
relating  to  Trade  and  Commerce,  and  the  present  state  of 
political  feeling  in  the  colonies,  and  the  exact  state  of  their 
relations  with  Great  Britain  and  this  country."^  Some 
years  previously  Andrews  had  been  employed  by  the  Treas- 
ury Department  to  make  a  report  on  the  "  trade,  commerce, 
and  resources  of  the  British  North  American  colonies," 
and  in  December,  1850,  it  was  completed.  It  is  quite  volu- 
minous, some  775  pages  in  length,  and  is  a  veritable  store- 
house of  information.^" 

Andrews,  therefore,  was  the  logical  man  to  appoint  as 
special  agent,  and  Marcy,  who  was  well  acquainted  with  his 
capabilities,  knew  him  to  be  much  more  than  a  mere  com- 
piler of  statistics.  According  to  his  official  instructions, 
dated  September  12,  1853,  his  duties  were  "important  and 
delicate,"  and  required  the  exercise  of  "  discretion,  vigi- 
lance, and  constant  application."    The  instructions  read: 

You  are  aware  that  a  project  of  a  Treaty  has  been  quite  recently 
prepared  by  me  and  submitted  to  the  British  Government  with  a 
brief  despatch  which  is,  as  you  know,  the  first  offer  ever  made,  in 
this  form,  on  this  question,  and  whether  accepted  or  not  will  un- 
doubtedly form  the  basis  of  a  permanent  Treaty. 

Your  position  as  an  officer  of  this  Government,  residing  for  sev- 
eral years  in  the  Colonies  and  your  acquaintance  with  the  principal 
Colonial  officers  and  .  .  .  with  Colonial  Trade,  .  .  .  will,  it  is  believed, 
aid  you  in  carrying  out  the  views  of  the  Department,  and  enable 
you  to  report  on  those  matters  in  which  the  Government  feels  a 
lively  interest. 

The  Government  is  aware  that  the  Colonies  are  not  agreed  nor 
united  on  the  question  of  Reciprocal  Trade  and  the  Fisheries,  and 

"  Ibid.,  p.  296. 

»  Marcy  to  I.  D.  Andrews,  Sept.  12,  1853,  Pierce  Papers,  MS,,  vol. 
iv. 
10  31st  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  S  Ex.  Doc.  No.  23. 


62  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY   OF    1 854  [[242 

that  a  treaty  which  would  be  satisfactory  to  Canada  might  not  be 
acceptable  to  the  lower  Colonies  particularly  New  Brunswick  and 
Nova  Scotia. 

The  Government  is  not  unmindful  of  the  necessity  of  having  this 
Treaty  acceptable,  as  far  as  possible  to  all  the  Colonies,  being  de- 
sirous that  this,  the  first  treaty  made  with  Great  Britain  with  entire 
reference  to  the  Colonies  should  have  the  effect  of  settling  the  vari- 
ous conflicting  questions  now  at  issue  between  the  Colonies  and  this 
country  and,  not  only  increasing  the  commercial  intercourse,  mutually 
advantageous,  but  to  stimulate  and  extend  an  increased  regard  and 
interest  for  this  country  and  its  institutions. 

Although  the  feelings  and  sympathies  of  a  people  sometimes  fol- 
low in  the  same  channel  as  its  trade  and  commerce,  and  while  it 
would  be  gratifying  to  see  such  a  result  in  this  instance,  you  are  fully 
aware  of  the  circumstances  attending  the  early  settlement  of  the 
colonies,  their  past  relations  with  Great  Britain,  and  the  exertions 
of  the  power  to  influence  the  public  feeling  there  with  the  view  of 
having  always  a  permanent  control  over  the  local  concerns  and  po- 
litical opinions  of  the  colonies. 

You  will  therefore,  in  a  proper  manner  confer  with  the  most  in- 
fluential men  in  the  colonies  to  express  the  interest  this  Government 
has  in  their  advancement  and  its  wish  to  tighten  the  bonds  which 
unite  the  two  countries.^^ 

Although  the  British  Government  now  had  a  copy  of 
Marcy's  projet  of  a  treaty,  yet  they  seemed  in  no  hurry  to 
conclude  a  treaty.  Relations  with  Russia  were  growing 
more  strained  every  day,  and  the  impending  war  appeared 
to  absorb  most  of  the  attention  of  the  British  Government.^^ 
Another  important  reason  why  the  conclusion  of  a  treaty  of 
reciprocity  was  delayed  was  on  account  of  the  habitudes  of 
the  British  minister,  John  C.  Crampton.  Crampton,  though 
personally  affable,  was  "  constitutionally  indolent,"  one  who 
preferred  his  own  ease  to  bestirring  himself  actively  even  on 
matters  of  moment  to  his  country.  Lord  Redesdale,  who 
knew  him  well,  gives  the  following  characterization : 

The  truth  is  that  he  was  a  Bohemian  of  the  Bohemians,  a  man 
...  to  whom  the  donning  of  a  fine  coat  and  a  star  was  little  short  of 
tortture.  I  knew  him  well',  for  he  was  a  contemporary  of  my 
father's  in  the  service,  and  there  were  few  days — when  he  was  on 
leave  in  London — on  which  he  did  not  knock  at  our  door.  He  had 
all  the  gifts  of  the  Irish  raconteur,  and  his  stories  were  enhanced 
by  the  charm  of  a  musical  speaking  voice — a  great,  handsome,  leo- 
nine figure,  with  his  silver  hair  and  beard,  whose  advent  we  always 
hailed  with  joy.  .  .  .  With  us  and  very  few  other  friends  he  would 

11  Marcy  to  I.  D.  Andrews,  Sept.  12,  1853,  Pierce  Papers,  MS., 
vol.  iv. 

12  B.  E.  Schmitt,  "  Diplomatic  Preliminaries  of  the  Crimean  War," 
in  the  American  Historical  Review,  Oct.  1919,  pp.  36-67. 


2431  CONCLUSION    OF    THE    RECIPROCITY    TREATY  63 

sit  by  the  fire,  a  great  tame  cat,  purring  the  livelong  winter  after- 
noon. However  great  his  personal  attractiveness  might  be  he  was 
certainly  not  successful  as  a  diplomat. 

When  he  was  at  Washington,  President  Pierce  broke  off  relations 
with  him  on  account  of  his  recruiting  activities.  ...  It  was  the  one 
case  in  which  he  overcame  his  constitutional  indolence,  and  it  was 
not  Iucky.i3 

On  December  22,  1853,  James  Buchanan,  the  American 
minister  at  the  Court  of  St.  James,  wrote  Marcy  an  interest- 
ing letter  concerning  both  Mr.  Crampton  and  the  reciprocity 
negotiations.  "  I  like  Crampton,'^  Buchanan  remarks,  "  but 
it  is  unfortunate  that  the  English  minister  at  Washington  is 
not  better  known  and  does  not  enjoy  a  high  position  and 
perhaps  more  influential  connections  at  home.  The  next  time 
I  see  Lord  Clarendon  I  shall  speak  to  him  again  on  the  Fish- 
ery and  Reciprocity  questions.  Lord  Elgin  is  now  in  Lon- 
don, who  will  have  much  influence  on  these  questions.  I 
met  him  the  other  day  at  Lord  Canning's  and  we  had  a  little 
conversation  across  the  table  having  a  remote  bearing  on  this 
subject,  from  which  I  did  not  augur  very  favorably."  ^* 

In  Buchanan's  next  letter,  January  28,  1854,  he  remarks 
that  the  English  were  growing  embittered  against  the  United 
States  because  of  our  admiration  for  the  Czar.  Crampton, 
meanwhile,  had  been  even  more  indolent  than  ever.  Dur- 
ing his  attendance  at  a  certain  public  function  in  Washing- 
ton he  had  neglected  to  rise  when  the  American  National  Air 
was  played.  Naturally  this  did  not  increase  his  usefulness 
as  British  minister,  and  even  Buchanan,  who  still  admitted 
a  certain  amount  of  aflFection  for  Crampton,  could  not  for- 
give such  a  "  breach  of  courtesy."  ^" 

On  March  11,  1854,  Marcy  addressed  detailed  instructions 
to  Buchanan  relative  to  the  fisheries  and  commercial  reci- 
procity. It  had  been  five  months  since  Marcy  had  submitted 
to  Crampton  the  projet  of  a  treaty,  but  the  British  govern- 
ment had  indicated  no  strong  desire  to  act  upon  it.     Marcy's 

* 3  Lord  Redesdale,  Further  Memories  (London,  1917),  pp.  292-293. 

1*  Marcy  Papers,  MS.,  vol',  xlvi. 

^'  Buchanan  to  Marcy,  Jan.  28,  1854,  ibid.,  vol.  xlvii. 


64  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY    TREATY    OF    1854  [^244 

instructions  are  vigorous  and  to  the  point,  and  owing  to  their 
obvious  importance  they  are  quoted  in  full: 

The  negotiations  for  the  Fisheries  and  reciprocity  of  trade  with 
the  British  North  American  Colonies  has  been  suspended  for  more 
than  five  months  in  consequence  of  the  delay  on  the  part  of  the 
British  Government  to  act  upon  the  projet  of  a  treaty  which  I  sub- 
mitted to  Mr.  Crampton  early  in  September  last.  It  was  supposed 
until  lately  that  this  delay  was  owing  to  the  time  required  by  Great 
Britain  to  ascertain  the  views  of  the  several  provi-nces  on  the  sub- 
ject, but  I  now  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  Home  Government 
has  but  very  recently  taken  any  steps  to  become  acquainted  with 
these  views  and  that  it  has  finally,  without  much  reference  to  the 
wishes  of  the  provinces,  declined  our  overtures 'unless  we  will  yield 
almost  every  point  of  diflference  which  arose  in  the  progress  of  the 
negotiation.  Within  a  few  days  past  Mr.  Crampton  read  to  me  part 
of  a  despatch  from  Lord  Clarendon  from  which  I  infer  that  there 
is  no  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Home  Government  to  conclude  the 
proposed  Treaty.  The  despatch  stated  that  the  Provinces  were  now 
prosperous  and  much  less  solicitous  than  they  had  been  for  recipro- 
cal free  trade  with  the  U.  S.  It  insisted  that  "  coal "  and  "  metals  " 
shall  be  inserted  in  the  list  of  free  articles.  The  propositions  to 
grant  to  our  citizens  the  free  use  of  the  River  St.  John — to  except 
the  coast  of  Florida  from  the  use  of  British  Fishermen — and  to  open 
the  British  coast  of  the  Pacific  to  our  Fishermen  in  common  with 
those  of  Great  Britain  are  all  peremptorily  overruled,  and  with  no 
reason  assigned  therefor,  except  as  to  the  latter,  and  the  reason  as- 
signed for  overruling  that  proposition  is,  that  the  right  to  fish  about 
Vancouver's  Island  had  been  granted  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 
Not  much  was  said  in  the  despatch  in  relation  to  the  surrender  of 
the  Bounty  upon  the  cod-fishery  but  the  admission  of  Colonial  built 
vessels  to  free  registration  in  the  U.  S.  when  they  become  the  prop- 
erty of  our  citizens  was  much  insisted  on. 

The  language  of  the  despatch  conveyed  clearly  to  my  mind  the  im- 
pression that  the  registration  of  Colonial  built  vessels  was  regarded 
as  a  sine  qua  non.  If  this  be  so  then  the  negotiation  must  fail  for 
that  point  cannot  be  yielded. 

Lord  Elgin,  the  Governor-General'  of  Canada,  is,  I  believe  yet  in 
England,  and  Mr.  Hincks,  the  Inspector  General  for  that  Province 
has  recently  sailed  for  England  and  expects  to  be  absent  about  three 
months.  Mr.  Hincks  has  heretofore  been  much  consulted  on  the 
subject  of  the  Treaty,  and  great  consideration  has  been  given  to  his 
opinion.  I  understand  that  he  is  still  hopeful  of  the  success_of  the 
negotiation.  He  probably  understands  as  well  as  any  other  indi- 
vidual" the  views  and  wishes  of  the  several  Provinces ;  and  it  is 
barely  possible  that  he  may  exert  a  favorable  influence  upon  the 
Home  Government  in  this  matter.  But  as  there  is,  however,  a  prob- 
ability that  no  Treaty  will'  be  concluded,  it  is  proper  to  consider  what, 
in  this  event  will  be  the  condition  of  things  on  the  fishing  grounds 
in  the  approaching  season.  The  citizens  of  the  U.  S.  having  enjoyed 
the  undisturbed  and  unquestioned  right  to  fish  in  the  large  and  open 
bays  along  the  coast  of  the  British  North  American  Provinces  for 
nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  after  the  conclusion  of  the  convention 
of  1818,  this  Government  will  not  yield  to  the  more  recent  construe- 


245] 


CONCLUSION    OF    THE   RECIPROCITY    TREATY  65 


tion  of  it  whereby  they  are  excluded  from  these  bays — it  will  main- 
tain the  contemporaneous  practical  construction  given  to  that  com- 
pact by  both  parties.  Not  until  within  ten  or  twelve  years  was  any 
question  raised  as  to  the  rights  of  our  fishermen  to  resort  to,  and 
take  fish  in  these  bays.  Should  Great  Britain  persist  in  her  recent 
construction  of  that  Convention,  and  attempt  to  prevent  our  fisher- 
men from  taking  fish  in  the  open  bays,  a  collision  can  hardly  be 
prevented.  The  United  States  will  claim  for  their  fishermen  this 
right  and  feel  bound  to  maintain  it  at  any  hazard. 

The  Convention  of  1818  excludes  the  citizens  of  the  U.  S.  from 
the  in-shore  fisheries  •  .  .  that  is  from  taking  fish  from  within  a 
marine  league  of  the  British  shores;  but  it  cannot  be  expected  that 
they  will  in  all  instances  respect  this  boundary.  This  business  of 
fishing  has  very  much  changed  of  late  years.  When  the  Convention 
of  1818  was  entered  into  the  taking  of  cod  was  the  all-important 
branch  of  the  fisheries ;  but  now  it  is  superseded  in  point  of  impor- 
tance by  the  mackerel  and  herring  fishery.  More  vessels  are  fitted 
out  in  the  U.  S.  for  taking  mackerel  and  herrings  which  are  mostly 
caught  in-shore,  than  for  cod  fishing.  Our  fishermen,  when  they 
fall  in  with  shoals  of  them,  will  not  resist  the  temptation  of  follow- 
ing them  within  the  shore  limit  fixed  by  the  Convention  of  1818. 
Though  the  right  of  Great  Britain  to  keep  them  beyond  the  limit 
cannot  be  questioned,  force  alone  can  effect  the  object.  Owing  to 
the  great  extent  of  coast,  quite  a  number  of  armed  vessels  will  be 
required  for  this  service. 

Disputes  will  constantly  arise  as  to  the  true  line  of  exclusion. 
Embarrassing  questions  of  this  kind  have  already  arisen  and  pro- 
duced unpleasant  discussions  between  the  two  Governments.  Such 
cases  will  prove  a  constant  source  of  irritation  and  controversy  and 
may  disturb  their  peaceful  relations. 

For  the  last  two  years  great  pains  have  been  taken  to  inculcate  a 
spirit  of  forbearance  on  both  sides.  On  the  part  of  our  fishermen 
a  disposition  was  manifested  last  year  to  go  on  their  fishing  trips 
prepared  to  maintain  their  rights,  as  they  understood  them,  by  force 
of  arms ;  but  by  the  interposition  of  the  Government  accompanied 
with  the  assurance  that  negotiations  were  on  foot  by  which  their 
rights  would  probably  be  extended,  and  that  any  collision  would  be 
sure  to  defeat  that  object,  they  were  prevented  from  carrying  out 
their  design.  When  such  an  inducement  can  no  longer  be  presented 
to  them  there  will  be  reason  to  apprehend  a  less  cautious  and  pru- 
dent course  on  their  part.  They  will  bring  the  question  of  their 
right  to  fish  in  the  open  bays  to  a  direct  issue. 

As  soon  as  it  is  ascertained  that  the  difficulties  in  relation  to  the 
fisheries  cannot  be  arranged  by  negotiation  this  Government  will 
prepare  to  sustain  our  fishermen  in  the  assertion  of  all  their  rights 
on  the  coasts  of  the  British  Provinces ;  and  these  rights  are  regarded 
here  to  be  more  extensive  than  those  conceded  to  them  by  Great 
Brit,  or  the  Provinces. 

The  President  expects  that  you  will  avail  yourself  of  any  proper 
occasion  that  may  offer,  to  impress  upon  Her  Britannic  Majesty's 
Ministers  the  importance  of  having  all  disputed  questions  as  to  the 
Fisheries  adjusted  as  well  as  other  matters.  If  the  negotiations 
for  a  treaty  should  fail,  the  British  Government  should  consent  to 
abandon  her  pretension  to  exclude  our  fishermen  from  the  open  bays 
along  the  coast  of  her  North  American  Provinces. 


66  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY    TREATY    OF    1854  [246 

The  U.  S.  in  case  of  a  failure  to  make  a  permanent  arrangement 
on  this  subject,  would  find  no  difficulty  in  entering  into  a  temporary 
one, — in  substance  such  as  you  suggested  to  Lord  Clarendon.''' 

The  nature  of  these  instructions  clearly  indicates  how  ser- 
iously Marcy  regarded  the  situation,  and  a  private  letter  to 
Buchanan  on  the  following  day,  March  12,  1854,  is  of  the 
same  tenor.  "  The  fishery  negotiation,"  observes  Marcy, 
"  looks  dubious.  If  the  negotiation  falls  through  and  England 
insists  on  excluding  us  from  the  open  Bays,  there  will  be 
trouble."  ^' 

Buchanan,  however,  was  not  so  fearful  of  any  conflict  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  England.  In  a  letter  to  Marcy, 
March  31,  1854,  he  dismisses  such  a  contingency  as  quite  un- 
likely. "  They  cannot  afford,"  he  confides,  "  to  go  to  war 
with  us.  In  the  present  condition  of  England,  which  I  have 
not  time  to  explain,  it  would  be  ruinous  to  them."  Then 
with  reference  to  Crampton  :  "  Without  any  but  the  most  kind 
and  even  friendly  feeling  towards  Mr.  Crampton,  I  cannot 
think  he  is  the  proper  man  to  represent  his  country  in  the 
United  States.  He  is  comparatively  unknown  at  home,  and 
his  family  are  without  influence  in  this  aristocratic  country. 
The  American  papers  have  stated  that  he  is  about  to  leave 
our  country,  and  should  this  prove  to  be  true,  I  shall  en- 
deavor to  have  the  right  kind  of  a  minister  appointed  in  his 
place.  I  am  convinced  that  from  motives  of  interest,  if  not 
from  higher  motives,  the  British  Government  and  people  are 
earnestly  desirous  to  be  on  good  terms  with  the  United 
States,  and  Lord  Clarendon  has  desired  another  postpone- 
ment of  our  conferences  until  next  week  on  account  of  his 
duties  in  Parliament  this  week  on  the  war  questions.  I  shall 
then  give  him  another  plain  talk  about  the  Fisheries."  ^* 

In  the  meantime,  Mr.  Israel  D.  Andrews,  who  had  been 
commissioned  as  special  agent  of  the  United  States  in  Sep- 
tember, 1853,  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  the  Canadian 
Maritime  Provinces  in  favor  of  a  treaty,  was  not  having  the 

18  Marcy  Papers,  MS.,  vof.  xlviii. 

I''  Ibid.,  Private  letter  book,  1853-1855. 

1*  Marcy  Papers,  MS.,  vol.  xlix. 


2473  CONCLUSION    OF    THE   RECIPROCITY    TREATY  67 

greatest  success  attend  his  efforts."  On  April  3,  1854,  in  a 
despatch  to  Marcy  he  suggested  that  some  few  thousands  of 
dollars  be  placed  to  his  account  in  order  that  he  might  silence 
opposition  and  promote  a  more  favorable  attitude  towards 
the  proposed  reciprocity  treaty.  Marcy,  however,  was  not 
enthusiastic  as  to  the  employment  of  such  means,  and  in  his 
instructions,  dated  April  10,  1854,  he  outlined  his  objections 
as  follows : 

I  have  just  received  your  confidential  despatch  of  the  3d  instant, 
written  at  St.  Johns,  N.  B.  The  prospect  therein  presented  of  a 
successful  close  to  the  Fishery  negotiation  is  gloomy  indeed,  and  I 
am  not  hopeful  of  improving  it  in  the  way  you  propose.  I  have 
always  been  distrustful  of  attempts  to  change  the  public  opinion  of 
any  community  by  such  means  as  you  refer  to.  In  order  to  have  a 
letter  reach  you  at  the  time  you  suggest  I  must  send  it  off  before  I 
can  consult  with  the  President.  Should  it  be  deemed  proper  to  use 
the  means  you  intimate,  it  cannot  be  done  at  this  time.  The  con- 
tingent fund  is  now  reduced  to  about  $5,000,  hardly  sufficient  t«> 
meet  the  ordinary  and  inevitable  drafts  upon  it  for  the  current  year 
which  will  end  on  the  last  day  of  next  June.  In  anticipation  of  a 
deficiency,  I  have  asked  an  addition  to  it  of  $15,000  in  the  Deficiency 
Bill,  but  that  has  not  passed,  and  there  are  serious  apprehensions 
that  it  will  not  pass  Congress. 

^"  It  was  in  the  province  of  Nova  Scotia  that  Andrews  had  to 
face  his  most  difficult  problem.  The  leaders  in  that  province  were 
forever  fearful  that  the  British  Government  was  likely  to  give 
generous  concessions  to  American  fishermen  without  exacting  com- 
mensurate commercial  privileges.  Throughout  the  year  1852,  they 
continued  their  activities,  and  in  September,  1852,  the  citizens  of 
Halifax  adopted  resollitions  which  "  from  beginning  to  end  "  showed 
"  a  spirit  of  deep  hostility  to  the  U.  S.,  and  a  determination  to  be 
satisfied  with  no  terms  of  accommodation  which  would  be  enter- 
tained by  our  government."  The  language  of  the  9th  resolution  is 
typical :  "  Resolved,  that  while  more  than  one  half  of  the  seacoast 
of  the  republic  [i.  e.,  the  U.  S.]  bounds  slave  states,  whose  laboring 
{.►opulation  cannot  be  trusted  upon  the  sea,  the  coasts  of  British 
America  include  a  frontage  upon  the  ocean  greater  than  the  whole 
Atlantic  seaboard  of  the  United  States  The  richest  fisheries  in  the 
world  surround  these  coasts.  Coal,  which  the  Americans  must  bring 
with  them,  should  they  provoke  hostilities,  abounds  at  the  most 
convenient  points.  Two  millions  of  adventurous  and  industrious 
people  already  inhabit  these  provinces,  and  the  citizens  of  Halifax 
would  indeed  deplore  the  deliberate  sacrifice  of  their  interests,  by 
any  weak  concessions  to  a  power  which  ever  seconds  the  efforts  of 
astute  diplomacy  by  appeals  to  the  angry  passions — the  full  force 
of  which  has  been  twice  on  British  America  within  the  memory  of 
this  generation,  and,  in  a  just  cause,  with  the  aid  of  the  mother 
country,  could  be  broken  again  "  (32d  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  H.  Ex.  Doc. 
No.  22,  pp.  450-451). 


|58  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1 854  Q248 

I  shall  lay  your  communication  before  the  President  for  his  vievvi 
upon  the  subject,  and  as  soon  as  ascertained  will  address  you  again 
at  Halifax. 

If  Great  Britain  is  determined  not  to  act  otherwise  than  the  wishes 
and  caprice  of  each  Colony  indicate,  it  is  hardly  to  be  expected  that 
anything  can  be  done.  If  I  had  known  that  such  was  to  be  her 
rule  of  conduct,  I  should  have  dispaired  of  success  from  the  be- 
ginning. We  cannot  purchase  by  concession  all  that  each  Colony 
may  demand.^o 

But  President  Pierce  was  evidently  more  interested  in 
bringing  to  a  successful  conclusion  the  reciprocity  negotia- 
tions than  Marcy  had  imagined,  for  on  April  15th  Marcy 
sent  fresh  instructions  to  Andrews  in  which  the  suggestions 
of  the  special  agent  are  specifically  adopted  and  a  special 
fund  placed  to  his  account.  The  instructions  are  very  im- 
portant and  are  partially  reproduced  as  follows : 

I  have  laid  before  the  President  your  confidential  letter  to  me  of 
the  31st  ultimo.  In  consideration  of  the  very  great  importance  of 
the  matter  in  which  you  are  engaged  he  deems  it  to  be  his  duty  to 
use  all  proper  means  at  his  disposal  to  bring  it  to  a  successful'  con- 
clusion. Your  drafts  on  the  department,  provided  they  do  not 
altogether  exceed  $5,000,  will  be  paid.  You  will  be  of  course  re- 
quired to  account  in  the  ordinary  way  or  to  him  confidentially  for 
the  expenditure  of  the  sum  you  may  thus  receive. 

Since  you  left  this  place  I  have  had  several'  conversations  with 
Crampton  relative  to  the  pending  negotiation.  The  condition  of 
political  affairs  in  Europe  has  made  the  Gov't,  of  Great  Britain  un- 
usually anxious  to  avoid  difficulties  with  the  U.  S.  We  should  prob- 
ably be  able  to  make  a  satisfactory  arrangement  with  the  home 
government  were  it  not  for  the  embarrassments  thrown  in  the  way 
by  the  Provinces.  The  home  government  is  very  much  disposed 
to  defer  in  this  matter  to  their  wishes.  However  anxious  it  is  to 
escape  apprehended  difficulties  with  the  U.  S.  it  is  not  less  anxious 
to  avoid  difficulties  with  its  North  American  possessions.  Mr. 
Crampton  has  informed  me  that  he  now  has  much  more  enlarged 
powers  in  regard  to  the  negotiation  than  he  had  heretofore  had, 
and  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  is  fully  authorized  to  yield  any  or  even 
all  points  of  difference  provided  he  shall  be  satisfied  that  the  Prov- 
inces will  approve  or  acquiesce  in  what  he  may  do.  It  is  evident 
as  we  have  all  along  foreseen  that  the  obstacles  to  be  overcome  are 
presented  by  the  Colonies.  It  is  with  them  we  are  to  labor  in  order 
to  remove  these  obstacles.  I  am  under  the  impression  that  hitherto 
Mr.  Crampton  has  not  and  does  not  now  favor  a  meeting  of  dele- 
gates from  the  Colonies  in  this  city.  I  am  not  quite  sure  that  he 
approves  of  such  a  meeting  at  the  City  of  New  York.  He  spoke  of 
efforts  to  be  made  by  him  to  induce  the  provinces  to  acquiesce  in  a 
proper  arrangement,  but  did  not  disclose  very  distinctly  the  mode  in 
which  it  was  to  be  done. 

•*  Marcy  Papers,  MS.,  vol",  xlix. 


24911'  CONCLUSION    OF    THE    RECIPROCITY    TREATY  69 

He  remarked  to  me  that  he  had  stated  to  his  government  that  the 
registration  of  colonial  built  vessel's  was  in  his  judgment  the  most 
serious,  and  perhaps  the  only  difficulty — ^but  the  manner  in  which  he 
alluded  to  that,  left  it  doubtful  whether  the  other  points  would  be 
yielded  to  or  by  us. 

I  hope  for  much  good  from  your  presence  and  efforts  in  the  prov- 
inces. Whatever  is  done  must  be  done  promptly — for  the  fishery 
season  will  soon  come  and  with  it  th«  apprehended  difficulties.  I 
regret  the  circumstances  which  have  produced  so  much  delay.  Lost 
time  must  be  made  up  if  possible  by  promptness  and  diligence. 

I  expect  you  will  keep  me  well  advised  of  your  movements  and 
doings.  It  may  be  necessary  for  me  to  communicate  with  you  and 
that  I  may  do  so  you  must  designate  the  places  at  which  my  letters 
will  be  most  likely  to  reach  you.^i 

After  receiving  this  authorization  Andrews  quickly  made 
the  most  of  his  opportunities,  and  in  a  short  while  expended 
a  large  part  of  the  $5,000  placed  to  his  credit.  By  the  lat- 
ter part  of  April  he  had  expended  $3,483.00,  which  he  item- 
ized as  follows : 

For  the  following  sums  necessarily  expended  ...  at  Halifax,  and 
other  places  on  the  public  service,  and  for  which  it  was  impracti- 
cable to  procure  vouchers. 

Paid  to  confidential  agents  for  special  services $  825.00 

Postages,  telegraphs,  messages   53-0O 

For  four  agents  whose  services  were  necessary  to  accom- 
plish special  objects  of  an  important  and  delicate  char- 
acter       730.00 

Dinner  parties,  coach  hire,  and  other  extraordinary  expenses 
of  a  like  character  which  I  was  called  upon  as  a  matter 

of  course  to  defray   575-00 

Paid  to  persons  in  public  departments  for  statistical  and 
other  information  essential  to  the  fulfillment  of  my  in- 
structions          250.00 

Confidential  agents  in  the  country  districts  300.00 

Paid  at  various  times  and  different  parties  in  the  fishing 

districts    450.00 

Paid    for   procuring  valuable   and   necessary   information 

from  Public  departments _3oaoo 

$3483.00 

Some  of  these  items  are  quite  interesting,  and  especially 
so  is  the  one  entitled  "  dinner  parties,  coach  hire  and  other 
extraordinary  expenses."  Andrews  must  have  been  con- 
vinced that  President  Pierce  was  particularly  interested  in 
the  success  of  the  reciprocity  treaty,  for  this  was  only  a  be- 
ginning, and  he  very  soon  passed  far  beyond  the  paltry  five 

"  Ibid. 


70  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1854  (^250 

thousand  dollars  that  had  been  placed  to  his  credit  for  extra- 
ordinary expenses. 

The  next  expense  account  that  he  rendered  is  both  large 
and  long,  and  is  given  here  in  full : 

For  the  following  expenditures  made  by  him  as  per  accompany- 
ing vouchers. 

No.  I.  W.  H.  Needham,  Fredericton,  ist  May,  1854.  For 
£210  paid  to  him  for  certain  purposes  of  a  govern- 
ment and  legislative  character  $  840.00 

2.  M.  H.  Parley,  St.  Johns,  May  13,  1854.  For  ex- 
penses of  telegraphic  messages  sent  by  Mr.  A 51.00 

3.  E.  G.  Fuller,  Halifax,  April  22,  1854.  For  this 
amount  expended  by  him  (and  for  which  he  fur- 
nished Mr.  Andrews  with  a  receipt),  on  subjects 
affecting  the  interests  of  the  U.  States  in  this  Col- 
ony, which  were  disbursed  in  a  private  manner  for 
the  following  purposes. 

To  the  Sun  and  other  papers  for  publishing  editorial 
articles. 

To  contributors  for  preparing  articles. 

To  secret  agents  for  special  services. 

For  positages  and  telegraphic  messages. 

Presents  to  various  parties,  coach  hire,  dinner 
parties,  etc. 

To  persons  in  public  departments,  expedition  money,  etc. 

To  active  persons  in  Country  districts. 

To  influential  persons  in  Fishing  Districts. 

Procuring  early  information  from  public  depart- 
ments. 

Contribution  to  Election  Expenses  for  Gov't  Can- 
didate,   etc 3,900.00 

4.  George  Coggswell,  St.  JoTins,  Dec.  21,  1853.  For 
traveling  to  Halifax  and  back,  560  miles,  on  gov- 
ernment business  of  private  character   165.40 

5.  /.  P.  Keefee,  Montreal',  Dec.  3,  1853.  For  services 
and  expenses  of  a  journey  to  Quebec  to  see  the 
Hon.  M.  Ross,  the  Attorney  General  of  Canada,  and 
Mr.  Tache,  Commissioner  of  Public  Works,  to  take 
certain  steps  in  relation  to  the  Fisheries  in  the  Gulf 

of  St  Lawrence  and  in  Nova  Scotia 313.20 

6.  George  N.  Hill,  Halifax,  Apr.  18,  1854.    For  services 

at  Nova  Scotia  about  fisheries  247.00 

7.  Wm.  Mackay,  St.  Johns,  May  10,  1854.    On  account 

of  services  and  to  be  expended 314.00 

8.  William  Noble,  Halifax,  Apr.  21,  1854.  Expenses  of 
special  messengers  to  Prince  Edward  Island  and 
Newfoundland  with  despatches   349.00 

9.  Robinson  &  Thompson,  St.  John,  May  18,  1854.  For 
sundries    206.80 

10.  National  Hotel,  Washington.    Board  and  Parlor  . .    1,282.75 

$7,669.15 


251J  CONCLUSION    OF    THE    RECIPROCITY    TREATY  71 

For  the  following  expenditures  not  supported  by 
vouchers. 

Paid  privately  and  by  myself  to  officials,  leading  per- 
sons and  the  press  and  to  others  from  whom  it 
was  not  proper  to  ask  for,  or  to  expect  vouchers, 
as  follows : 

In  Quebec  $570,  Montreal  $465,  Halifax  $810, 
Pictou  and  for  the  shore  near  the  Gut  of  Canso 
$800,  Annapolis  and  Digby  Gut  $330,  Fredericton 
$280,  St.  Johns,  N.  B.,  for  Gulf  Shore  and  Gaspe 
$963 $4,218.00 

To  P.  F.  Little,  Member  of  Provincial  Assembly, 
Newfoundland,  since  appointed  a  delegate  from 
that  Colony  to  the  British  Government,  and  who 
was  also  a  delegate  to  meet  Lord  Elgin  in  Quebec. 
He  has  done  this  government  and  the  Treaty  good 
service    $1,150.00 

I  am  to  pay  this  sum  when  I  return  to  the  Prov- 
inces, in  New  Brunswick  and  P.  E.  Island,  in  the 
lower  part  of  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia,  viz $2,683.00 

Paid  in  Washington   3,000.00 

11,051.00 

Add  amount  for  which  there  are  vouchers  7,669.15 

22  $18,720.15 

The  explanations  and  remarks  of  Mr.  Andrews  relative  to 
these  expenditures  are  very  important  and,  I  believe,  should 
be  quoted  in  their  entirety : 

No.  I.  Mr.  Needham  presented  resolutions  in  the  New  Bruns- 
wick assembly  adverse  to  a  surrender  of  the  fisheries. 

No.  3.  It  was  absolutely  necessary  to  have  a  private  and  efficient 
agent  at  Halifax,  on  account  of  the  state  of  public  feeling  in  that 
important  fishery  region,  and  in  view  of  the  magnitude  of  the  in- 
terests at  state.  Mr.  Fuller  is  an  American,  a  native  of  New  York, 
and  he  did  this  Government  a  good  service,  without  fee  or  reward 
of  any  kind,  whatever. 

Except  those  amounts  unpaid,  for  which  I  am  hel'd  personally  re- 
sponsible, I  have  paid  all  bills,  from  amounts  received  from  the 
Government,  and  from  my  own  funds  that  I  received  from  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  for  my  Report.  I  now  owe  three  thousand 
dollars  borrowed  money,  in  this  city,  and  several  thousand  dollars  in 
this  and  other  places,  which  I  found  it  absolutely  necessary  to  use 
without  hesitation  to  advance  the  Treaty,  and  in  no  single  instance 
has  there  been  any  squandering,  recklessness  or  looseness  in  the  way 
of  money  matters. 

I  trust  that  the  Secretary  of  State  will  not  overlook  the  deep  feel- 
ing in  the  Lower  Colonies,  particularly  in  Nova  Scotia  and  New 
Brunswick,  who  were  in  reality  prominent  parties  to  the  negotiation 
— which  feeling  was  quite  the  opposite  to  the  public  sentiment  in 
Upper  Canada,  which  Mr.  Hincks  only  represented — and  it  was  de- 
cidedly opposed  to  a  surrender  of  the  fisheries  to  the  Government 
and  people  of  the  United  States. 

22  Pierce  Papers,  MS.,  vol.  iv. 


72  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1 854  Q252 

This  state  of  feeling  was  produced  by  the  former  indiflference  and 
inaction  of  this  Government,  by  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Hincks,  by  a 
more  just  appreciation  of  the  value  and  importance  of  their  fisheries 
and  by  the  inefficient  and  by  no  means  politic  course  of  Mr.  Cramp- 
ton. 

I  have  already  fully  explained  this  point  in  my  despatch  of  May 
13,  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

The  necessity  of  having  unanimity  amongst  all  the  Colonies,  this 
Government  will  no  doubt  appreciate. 

During  the  progress  of  the  negotiations,  I  had  uniformly  main- 
tained my  intimate  relations  with  Mr.  Hincks  (who  during  a  great 
part  of  the  time  was  at  the  head  of  the  Canadian  Government)  and 
other  influential  persons  in  the  Colonics,  and  when  I  met  Mr.  H.  in 
New  York,  in  February,  on  his  way  to  England,  it  was,  at  my  sug- 
gestion arranged,  that  either  Mr.  Crampton  should  have  fresh  in- 
structions, or  that  Lord  Elgin  should  return  from  England  with  full 
power  to  make  a  Treaty.  It  was  a  condition  of  that  arrangement, 
that  I  should  undertake  the  management  of  matters  in  the  Lower 
Colonies,  which  Mr.  Hincks  confessed  were  beyond  the  power  of 
either  himself  or  Mr.  Crampton. 

On  my  return  from  New  York,  I  informed  the  Secretary  of  State 
of  all  I  had  done,  stated  my  convictions  that  the  negotiations  would 
now  "be  successful,"  but  that  I  required  funds  to  overcome  the 
energetic  and  rising  opposition  in  the  Lower  or  Atlantic  Colonies. 

No  matter  what  opinions  may  be  entertained  now,  of  the  wisdom 
of  my  management,  I  unhesitatingly  declare  that  the  Expenditure 
saved  the  Treaty,  so  far  as  the  Lower  Colonies  and  the  lower  part 
of  Canada  had  the  power  to  oppose  it.  Lord  Clarendon  considered 
this  opposition  so  formidable  that  he  refused  to  go  on  unless  that 
opposition  was  withdrawn. 

I  have  asked  in  my  statement  only  for  what  I  have  expended  or 
am  liable  for.  That  amount  cannot  be  reduced  except  at  my  loss, 
and  it  is  for  the  Government  to  decide  (as  I  wish  them  to  decide, 
quite  independent  of  individual'  claims)  if  the  small  sums  asked  for, 
bear  any  comparison  to  the  results  obtained. 

If  it  were  proper  or  practicable,  I  should  feel  no  hesitation  in  ap- 
plying to  Congress  for  this  and  even  larger  sums  to  defray  the  nec- 
essary expenses  of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty. 

The  sum  of  Three  thousand  Dollars,  will,  if  required,  be  the  sub- 
ject of  personal  explanation  to  the  President  or  Secretary  of  State. 
The  circumstances  under  which  it  was  applied,  are  of  so  delicate  a 
nature,  that  I  do  not  conceive  it  judicious  to  make  any  explanation 
even  in  this  confidential  communication. 

I  have  used  names  freely,  and  have  expressed  my  views  frankly, 
with  the  conviction  that  it  is  all  in  strict  confidence,  and  that  whether 
my  statements  and  explanation  are  received  or  rejected,  all  will  be 
destroyed  by  order  of  the  President. 

I  have  nothing  to  say  of  four  or  five  years  services,  nor  of  per- 
sonal sacrifices  I  have  made  to  have  this  measure  carried. 

If  in  the  form  of  pay  or  reimbursements  of  Expenses,  or  any  other 
honorable  mode,  I  am  made  anything  like  nearly  whole,  I  shall  be 
satisfied. 


253D  CONCLUSION    OF   THE   RECIPROCITY   TREATY  73 

It  is  fortunate  that  this  itemized  list  of  expenditures  and 
the  accompanying  remarks  of  Mr.  Andrews  were  not  "  de- 
stroyed" in  compliance  with  his  request.  In  the  Depart- 
ment of  State,  at  Washington,  the  Andrews  papers  are  not 
open  to  investigators,  and  up  to  this  time  no  one  has  sus- 
pected that  the  government  of  the  United  States  was  so 
greatly  interested  in  the  success  of  the  reciprocity  treaty  that 
it  sent  a  special  agent  to  the  Lower  Provinces,  with  thousands 
of  dollars  to  his  credit,  to  promote  a  friendly  attitude  to- 
wards such  a  convention.  Some  items  arrest  particular  at- 
tention. For  instance  number  one  reads :  "  W.  H.  Needham. 
Fredericton,  May  i,  1854,  for  210  £  paid  by  him  for  certain 
purposes  of  a  Government  and  Legislative  character.  $840.- 
00."  Previous  to  this  payment,  Mr.  Needham  had  presented 
resolutions  "  adverse  to  a  surrender  of  the  fisheries."  After 
this  "  disbursement,"  which  "  was  absolutely  necessary,"  Mr. 
Needham's  opposition  evaporated,  and  he  became  an  earnest 
supporter  of  the  treaty.  In  Newfoundland  "  the  Govern- 
ment and  its  party  were  opposed  to  any  arrangement,"  so  the 
sum  of  $1,150  was  distributed  there  in  various  ways  for 
propaganda  purposes.^^  At  Halifax,  $3,900  was  spent  in 
the  following  manner:  "To  the  Sun  and  other  papers  for 
publishing  editorial  articles;  to  contributors  for  preparing 
articles;  presents  to  various  parties,  coach  hire,  dinner 
parties ;  to  influential  persons  in  Fishing  Districts,  etc." 

It  is  not  difficult  to  perceive  from  these  significant  items, 
and  the  above  explanations  of  Mr.  Andrews,  that  one  of  the 
main  reasons  for  the  final  success  of  the  reciprocity  negotia- 
tions was  the  liberal  expenditure  of  money  by  the  special 
agent  of  the  United  States.  And  this  money,  moreover,  was 
expended  in  such  a  confidential  manner  that  vouchers  could 
not  be  procured  and  forwarded  to  the  State  Department  for 
examination.  Ever  since  1854,  it  has  been  insinuated  by  cer- 
tain American  writers  that  the  reciprocity  treaty  was 
"floated"    through    the    American    Congress    "on    cham- 

28  Ibid.,  May,  1854. 


74  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1 854  [^254 

pagne."^*  In  the  light  of  the  above  expenditures,  such  a 
charge  appears  to  come  with  peculiar  ill-grace  from  Amer- 
ican historians. 

Throughout  the  month  of  April  and  the  early  part  of 
May,  Andrews  was  indefatigable  in  his  efforts  to  mould 
public  opinion  in  the  Lower  Provinces  in  favor  of  the 
treaty.  On  May  4,  1854,  he  sent  the  following  despatch 
to  Marcy  from  St.  John's,  New  Brunswick: 

I  have  this  moment  returned  from  Fredericton  again  to  which  city 
I  hurried  overland  to  be  there  before  the  legislature  adjourned. 

After  several  interviews  with  the  Governor  and  the  leading  men 
of  the  Council,  it  was  not  deemed  to  be  advisable  to  have  a  public 
discussion  at  this  time,  as  it  might  probably  increase  the  opposition 
on  the  North  Eastern  Coasts. 

The  Governor  will,  however,  appoint  delegates  and  will  if  possible 
appoint  those  favorable  to  a  settlement,  notwithstanding  it  was  de- 
bated in  Council  the  other  day  and  decided  not  to  send  delegates. 
It  is  considered  judicial  to  keep  the  matter  as  quiet  as  possible  for 
the  present  as  a  new  election  for  Assemblymen  will  take  place  in  a 
few  weeks. 

The  Governor,  Sir  Edmund  Head,  is  a  very  able  man,  and  is  in 
the  confidence  of  the  leading  statesmen  of  England. 

He  has  private  news  from  Lord  Elgin  who  will  arrive  in  New 
York  about  the  i8th  instant,  and  who  will,  it  is  supposed,  bring  fresh 
instructions  on  the  colonial  questions,  and  it  is  not  improbable  he 
may  go  to  Washington  to  see  you  and  the  President.  On  this  point 
Sir  Edmund  is  not  fully  advised. 

There  will  not  be  any  cruisers  fitted  out  by  this  Province.  I  had 
a  very  particular  conversation  with  the.  Governor  on  this  matter.25 

On  May  26,  1854,  Marcy  received  his  last  despatch  from 
Andrews  relative  to  the  reciprocity  negotiations.  Lord 
Elgin  was  already  on  his  way  to  the  United  States  to  make 
a  final  effort  to  conclude  some  kind  of  a  reciprocal  conven- 
tion, and  it  is  apparent  from  the  despatch  of  Andrews  that 
he  was  largely  instrumental  in  influencing  the  British  Gov- 
ernment to  select  Elgin  for  the  important  mission.  The 
despatch  is  more  brief  than  usual,  and  simply  recounts  the 
preparations  being  made  by  the  delegates  from  the  Lower 
Provinces  to  leave  for  New  York  where  they  were  to  con- 

2*  Frederick  E.  Haynes,  "  The  Reciprocity  Treaty  With  Canada 
of  1854,"  in  Publications  of  American  Economic  Association,  vol. 
vii,  No.  6,  pp.  17-18. 

20  Marcy  Papers,  MS.,  vol.  1. 


2551  CONCLUSION    OF    THE    RECIPROCITY    TREATY  75 

suit  with  Lord  Elgin  and  Mr.  Crampton.  Writing  from 
Eastport,  Maine,  May  19,  1854,  Mr.  Andrews  remarks  as 
follows : 

I  wasted  a  few  days  up  the  line  for  the  action  of  the  council  and 
then  got  a  telegraph  from  the  Provincial  Secretary  and  met  Mr. 
Chandler  at  St.  Johns.  We  cam*  together  to  this  place.  Mr. 
Chandler  goes  on  in  the  boat,  his  colleagues  will  follow  by  the  next 
steamer.  The  other  delegates  are  getting  ready  to  move.  Lord  El- 
gin and  Mr.  Crampton  may  wish  to  go  on  independent  of  the  dele- 
gates. Nothing  satisfactory  can  be  done  unless  the  Colonies  are 
consulted. 

When  I  met  Mr.  Hincks  in  New  York  in  February,  I  told  him 
that  either  Lord  Elgin  or  Mr.  Crampton  should  have  authority  to 
settle  the  matter,  and  I  wrote  to  him  every  mail  until  April,  urging 
him  to  call  on  Lord  Clarendon  with  Lord  Elgin.^e 

When  Lord  Elgin  sailed  from  England  for  America  in 
the  spring  of  1854,  it  was  naturally  supposed  that  he  had 
been  commissioned  to  bring  to  a  successful  conclusion  the 
reciprocity  negotiations  that  had  been  dragging  their  weary 
length  through  long,  unfruitful  years.  Buchanan  imme- 
diately assumed  that  Elgin  was  sailing  to  accomplish  this 
specific  purpose,  but  according  to  Buchanan's  following 
despatch,  Clarendon  expressly  denied  this : 

I  met  Lord  Clarendon  at  a  party  a  few  evenings  ago  and  asked 
him  if  it  was  true  that  they  had  sent  Lord  Elgin  on  a  mission  to 
Washington  to  settle  the  Fishery  question,  explaining  my  hope  that 
the  report  in  the  newspapers  was  well'  founded.  He  said  His  Lord- 
ship would  visit  Washington,  as  a  person  well  acquainted  with  the 
interests  of  the  Provinces  and  their  relations  with  the  United  States, 
and  he  trusted  good  might  arise  from  this  visit;  but  from  his  con- 
versation I  doubt  whether  Lord  Elgin  has  any  specific  instructions 
or  authority  upon  the  subject  unless  possibly  it  may  be  to  conclude 
some  temporary  arrangement  such  as  that  suggested  by  myself.  I 
am  confirmed  in  this  impression  by  a  conversation  with  the  Marquis 
of  Lansdowne  yesterday  at  my  own  house.  Still  great  good  may 
arise  from  Lord  Elgin's  visit,  simply  because  he  is  a  man  of  rank, 
of  reputation,  and  of  influence  in  this  country,  whose  advice  would 
go  far  to  sustain  the  Ministry,  in  any  course  of  conduct  on  the  sub- 
ject which  he  would  recommend.  Sir  Henry  Bulwer,  I  know,  is 
anxious  to  settle  the  fishery  question  almost  on  any  fair  terms ;  and 

2«  Ibid.  Mr.  J.  W.  Chandler  accompanied  Lord  Elgin  to  Wash- 
ington as  the  official  representative  of  New  Brunswick.  Nova 
Scotia,  alone,  of  the  Provinces,  was  not  represented  in  Lord  Elgin's 
suite.  See  Sir  Francis  Hinck's  Reminiscences  (Montreal,  1884),  pp. 
233.-236. 


76  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1854  [[256 

I  have  been  pleased  to  observe  in  what  very  strong  and  favorable 
terms  both  he  and  Lady  Bulwer,  on  all  occasions  speak  of  the  United 
States.27 

Lord  Garendon,  later  on,  insisted  "  most  strenuously " 
that  he  had  definitely  informed  Buchanan  "of  the  nature 
and  character  of  Lord  Elgin's  mission  before  his  depar- 
ture" for  America,^®  and  on  June  27th,  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  he  declared  that  the  return  of  Lord  Elgin  to  Canada 
afforded  an  "  opportunity  "  which  could  not  be  "  neglected," 
and  that  that  was  the  reason  he  had  been  given  instructions 
to  journey  to  Washington  and  effect  a  settlement  of  the 
reciprocity  and  fishery  questions.^® 

Lord  Elgin  and  his  suite  arrived  in  Washington  on  May 
26th,  four  days  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  famous  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill.  Party  strife  was  at  its  highest  pitch,  and  it 
was  generally  believed  that  no  reciprocity  convention  could 
pass  through  Congress  at  that  session.  But  there  was  really 
much  more  unanimity  of  thought  relative  to  reciprocity 
with  Canada  than  anyone  imagined.  The  fishing  interests 
were  solidly  in  favor  of  it  and  the  South  had  been  deferred 
to  by  placing  on  the  free  list  such  important  articles  as 
rice,  pitch,  tar,  turpentine,  and  unmanufactured  tobacco. 
Besides,  the  South  was  somewhat  apprehensive  of  the 
strength  of  the  annexationist  movement  in  Canada.  This 
movement  showed  a  rapid  decline  after  1849,'°  but  this  fact 
was  not  readily  appreciated  by  Southern  Senators  and  mem- 
bers of  Congress  who  began  to  experience  real  fears  that 
unless  Canadian  discontent  was  allayed  through  the  opera- 
tion of  a  reciprocity  treaty  with  the  United  States,  annexa- 
tion might  result.  This  would,  of  course,  give  a  very  sub- 
stantial increase  in  political  strength  to  the  Free-Soil  Party, 
and  such  a  contingency  must  by  all  means  be  averted.    Ac- 

27  Letters  of  James  Buchanan  to  William  L.  Marcy,  1854,  Marcy 
Papers,  MS.,  special  volume, 

*«  Buchanan  to  Marcy,  June  13,  1854,  Marcy  Papers,  MS.,  vol.  1. 

29  Hansard  (London,  1854),  vol.  134,  p.  730. 

3"Allin  and  Jones,  Annexation,  Preferential  Trade  and  Reci- 
procity (Toronto,  1912),  pp.  353-354- 


257]  CONCLUSION    OF    THE    RECIPROCITY    TREATY  77 

cording  to  the  recollection,  in  1865,  of  Senator  CoUamer,  of 
Vermont,  it  was  precisely  because  of  this  fear  that  the  South 
supported  the  treaty,  and  he  asserted  that  Senator  Toombs, 
of  Georgia,  admitted  as  much.  "  I  remember  well,"  de- 
clared Senator  Collamer,  "that  on  one  occasion  here  after 
the  making  of  the  treaty,  and  soon  after  I  had  the  honor  of  a 
seat  in  this  body,  when  this  question  came  up  collaterally,  I 
plainly  stated  that  that  was  the  motive  with  which  that  treaty 
had  been  made ;  that  it  had  been  made  with  a  view  to  quiet 
the  people  of  Canada  and  prevent  their  annexation  to  the 
North,  which  might  disturb  '  the  balance  of  power  *  of  our 
southern  friends,  and  Mr.  Toombs,  then  sitting  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Chamber  bowed  very  low  to  me  and  said  *we 
have  got  the  treaty ;  they  have  been  quieted.'  "  '^ 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  Lord  Elgin  and  his  suite 
arrived  in  the  midst  of  intense  political  excitement,  they  im- 
mediately attracted  considerable  attention.  Fortunately  the 
progress  of  Lord  Elgin's  mission  is  fully,  if  somewhat  flam- 
boyantly, described  by  Elgin's  private  secretary,  Laurence 
Oliphant,  who  possessed  an  unusual  facility  of  expression, 
and  in  his  endeavor  always  to  be  interesting,  he  often  grossly 
exaggerated  what  he  saw.  But  even  with  these  limitations 
and  qualifications,  his  account  has  some  value.  Undeniably, 
it  has  sparkle  and  movement.    In  his  memoir  he  says : 

It  was  at  the  height  of  the  season  when  we  were  at  Washingfton, 
and  our  arrival  imparted  a  new  impetus  to  the  festivities,  and  gave 
rise  to  the  taunt,  after  the  treaty  was  concl'uded,  by  those  who  were 
opposed  to  it,  that  "  it  had  been  floated  through  on  champagne." 
Without  altogether  admitting  this,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that,  in  the 
hands  of  a  skillful  diplomatist,  that  beverage  is  not  without  its  val"ue. 
Looking  through  an  old  journal,  I  find  the  following  specimen  entry. 
..."  Got  away  from  the  French  Minister  just  in  time  to  dress  for 
dinner  at  the  President's.  More  senators  and  politics,  and  cham- 
pagne, and  Hard  Shells  and  Soft  Shells.  I  much  prefer  the  marine 
soft-shell  crab,  with  which  I  here  made  acquaintance  for  the  first 
time,  to  the  political  one.  Then  with  a  select  party  of  senators,  all 
of  whom  were  opposed  in  principle  to  the  treaty,  to  Governor  A's 
where  we  imbibed  more  champagne  and  swore  eternal  friendship, 
carefully  avoided  the  burning  question,  and  listened  to  stories  good, 
bad  and  indifferent,  till  2  A.M.,  when,  after  twelve  hours  of  inces- 
sant entertainment,  we  went  home  to  bed  thoroughly  exhausted." 

•»  Cong.  Globe,  38th  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  1864-1865,  pt  i,  pp.  210,  230. 


78  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY    TREATY    OF    1854  [^258 

Meantime,  to  my  inexperienced  mind  no  progress  was  being 
made  in  my  mission.  Lord  Elgin  had  announced  its  objection  on 
his  arrival  to  the  president  and  the  secretary  of  state,  and  had  been 
informed  by  them  that  it  was  quite  hopeless  to  think  that  any  such 
treaty  as  he  proposed  could  be  carried  through,  with  the  opposition 
that  existed  to  it  on  the  part  of  the  Democrats,  who  had  a  majority 
in  the  Senate,  without  the  ratification  of  which  body  no  treaty  could 
be  concluded.  His  lordship  was  partly  assured,  however,  that  if  he 
could  overcome  this  opposition,  he  would  find  no  difficulty  on  the 
part  of  the  Government.  At  last,  after  several  days  of  uninter- 
rupted festivity,  I  began  to  perceive  what  we  were  driving  at.  To 
make  quite  sure,  I  said  one  day  to  my  chief : 

"  I  find  all  my  most  intimate  friends  are  democratic  senators." 

"  So  do  I,"  he  replied  dryly,  and  indeed  his  popularity  among 
them  at  the  end  of  a  week  had  become  unbounded,  and  the  best  evi- 
dence of  it  was  that  they  ceased  to  feel  any  restraint  in  his  company, 
and  often  exhibited  traits  of  Western  manners  unhampered  by  con- 
ventional trammels.  Lord  Elgin's  faculty  of  brilliant  repartee  and 
racy  anecdote  especially  delighted  them,  and  one  evening,  after  a 
grand  dinner,  he  was  persuaded  to  accompany  a  group  of  senators 
...  to  the  house  of  a  popular  and  very  influential  politician,  there  to 
prolong  the  entertainment  into  the  small'  hours.  Our  host,  at  whose 
door  we  knocked  at  midnight,  was  in  bed,  but  much  thundering  at  it 
at  length  aroused  him,  and  he  himself  opened  to  us  appearing  in 
nothing  but  a  very  short  nightshirt. 

"All  right,  boys,"  he  said,  at  once  divining  the  object  of  our  visit; 
''  You  go  in,  and  I'll  go  down  and  get  the  drink,"  and  without  stop- 
ping to  array  himself  more  completely,  he  disappeared  into  the  nether 
regions,  shortly  returning  with  his  arms  filled  with  bottles  of  cham- 
pagne, on  the  top  of  which  were  two  large  lumps  of  ice.  .  .  .  He 
was  a  dear  old  gentleman,  somewhat  of  the  Lincoln  type,  and  .  .  . 
evidently  a  great  character,  and  many  were  the  anecdotes  told  about 
him  in  his  own  presence,  all  bearing  testimony  to  his  goodness  of 
heart  and  readiness  of  wit. 

At  last,  after  we  had  been  receiving  the  hospitalities  at  Wash- 
ington for  about  ten  days,  Lord  Elgin  announced  to  Mr.  Marcy  that, 
if  the  Government  were  prepared  to  adhere  to  their  promise  to  con- 
clude a  treaty  of  reciprocity  with  Canada,  he  could  assure  the  presi- 
dent that  he  would  find  a  majority  of  the  senate  in  its  favor,  includ- 
ing several'  prominent  Democrats.  Mr.  Marcy  could  scarcely 
believe  his  ears,  and  was  so  much  taken  aback  that  I  somewhat 
doubted  the  desire  to  make  the  treaty,  which  he  so  strongly  ex- 
pressed on  the  occasion  of  Lord  Elgin's  first  interview  with  him.  .  .  . 

For  the  next  three  days  I  was  as  busily  engaged  in  work  as  I  had 
been  for  the  previous  ten  at  play;  but  the  matter  had  to  be  put 
through  with  a  rush,  as  Lord  Elgin  was  due  at  the  seat  of  his  Gov- 
ernment. •  .  .  I  will  venture  to  quote  the  description  I  wrote  at  the 
time  of  the  signing  of  the  treaty,  and  ask  the  reader  to  make  allow- 
ance for  the  style  of  mock  heroics,  and  attribute  it  to  the  exuberance 
of  youth. 

"  It  was  in  the  dead  of  night,  during  the  last  five  minutes  of  the 
5th  of  June,  and  the  first  five  minutes  of  the  6th  of  the  month  afore- 
said, that  four  individuals  might  have  been  observed  seated  in  a 
spacious  chamber  lighted  by  six  wax  candles  and  an  Argand  lamp. 
Their  faces  were  expressive  of  deep  and  earnest  thought,  not  un- 


259I  CONCLUSION    OF    THE    RECIPROCITY    TREATY  79 

mixed  suspicion.  Their  feelings,  however,  to  the  acute  observer, 
manifested  themselves  in  different  ways ;  but  this  was  natural  as  two 
were  in  the  bloom  of  youth,  one  in  the  sear  and  yellow  leaf,  and  one 
in  the  prime  of  middle  age.  This  last  it  is  whose  measured  tones 
alone  break  the  silence  of  midnight,  except  when  one  or  other  of  the 
younger  auditors,  who  are  both  poring  intently  over  voluminous 
Mss.,  interrupts  him  to  interpolate  an  *  and '  or  erase  a  '  the.'  They 
are,  in  fact,  checking  him  as  he  reads,  and  the  aged  man  listens, 
while  he  .  .  .  may  occasionally  be  observed  to  wink  from  conscious- 
ness cuteness  or  unconscious  drowsiness.  Presently  the  clock  strikes 
twelve,  and  there  is  a  doubt  whether  the  date  should  be  today  or 
yesterday.  There  is  a  moment  of  solemn  silence,  when  the  reader, 
having  finished  the  document,  lays  it  down,  and  takes  a  pen  which 
had  been  previously  impressively  dipped  in  the  ink,  by  the  most  in- 
telligent looking  of  the  young  men,  who  appears  to  be  his  secretary, 
and  who  keeps  his  eye  warily  fixed  upon  the  other  young  man,  who 
occupies  the  same  relation  to  the  aged  listener  with  the  scissors. 

"  There  is  something  strangely  mysterious  and  suggestive  in  the 
scratching  of  that  midnight  pen,  for  it  may  be  scratching  fortunes 
or  ruin  to  millions.  Then  the  venerable  statesman  takes  up  the  pen 
to  append  his  signature.  His  hand  does  not  shake,  though  he  is 
very  old,  and  knows  the  abuse  that  is  in  store  for  him  from  mem- 
bers of  Congress  and  an  enlightened  press.  ...  So  he  gives  his  bless- 
ing and  the  treaty  is  signed."32 

On  June  19th  the  treaty  was  sent  to  the  Senate  for  con- 
sideration,'' and  on  August  2nd  it  easily  passed  the  Senate  by 
a  vote  of  32  to  11."  In  the  first  week  in  August,  Congress 
passed  an  act  carrying  into  effect  the  terms  of  the  treaty, 
and  on  August  5th  it  received  the  signature  of  the  President. 
The  act  provided  that — "Whenever  the  President  of  the 
United  States  shall  receive  satisfactory  evidence  that  the 
Imperial  Parliament  of  Great  Britain  and  the  provincial 
Parliaments  of  Canada,  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  and 
Prince  Edward  Island  have  passed  laws  on  their  part  to  give 
full  effect  to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  ...  he  is  hereby  authorized  to 
issue  his  proclamation  declaring  that  he  has  such  evidence, 
and  thereupon,  from  the  date  of  such  proclamation,  the  pro- 
visions of  the  treaty  should  take  effect."  ^^  On  September 
23,  1854,  the  legislature  of  the  Province  of  Canada  passed  a 

82  Laurence  Oliphant,  Episodes  in  a  Life  of  Adventure  (New 
York,  1887),  pp.  36-46. 

38  Ex.  Jour.  (Wash.,  1887),  vol.  ix,  p.  339. 

8*  Ibid.,  p.  376. 

85  U.  S.  Stat.  L.,  33d  Cong.,  ist  sess.,  chap.  269. 


80  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY   OF    1854  [260 

law  "giving  effect  to  the  treaty,"  and  this  action  was  fol- 
lowed by  Prince  Edward  Island,  October  7,  1854;  New 
Brunswick,  November  3,  1854;  and  Nova  Scotia,  Decem- 
ber 13,  1854,'*  On  May  16,  1855,  after  news  of  this  favor- 
able action  on  the  part  of  the  provincial  legislatures  was 
made  known  to  the  United  States  Government,  President 
Pierce  issued  a  proclamation  formally  putting  into  full  effect 
the  provisions  of  the  treaty.^'^  On  July  7,  1855,  the  legis- 
lature of  Newfoundland  passed  the  legislation  necessary  to 
put  the  treaty  into  effect,^^  and  on  December  12,  1855,  Pres- 
ident Pierce  issued  an  additional  proclamation  extending  to 
Newfoundland  the  full  benefits  of  the  treaty.'* 

The  treaty  as  finally  drawn  up  and  ratified  seemed  to  re- 
move every  cause  for  friction  between  the  United  States 
and  the  British  North  American  provinces.*"  The  fishing 
interests  of  the  United  States  were  especially  favored  by  the 
liberty  to  take  fish  within  the  three  mile  fimit  along  the 
coasts  of  British  North  America,  while  the  corresponding 
concession  of  reciprocal  liberties  to  British  subjects  along  the 
eastern  sea  coasts  and  shores  of  the  United  States  was  but 
seldom  availed  of  by  the  inhabitants  of  British  North  Amer- 
ica.*^ The  American  citizens  had  now  the  right  to  navigate 
the  river  St.  Lawrence  and  the  canals  in  Canada  subject  only 
to  the  "  same  tolls  and  other  assessments  as  now  or  may 
hereafter  be  exacted  of  Her  Majesty's  subjects."  Not  only 
this,  but  the  lumbering  interest  was  favored  by  the  clause 
providing  that  "  no  export  duty  or  other  duty  shall  be  levied 
on  lumber  or  timber  of  any  kind  cut  on  that  portion  of  the 
American  territory  in  the  State  of  Maine,  watered  by  the 
river  St.  John  and  its  tributaries  and  floated  down  that  river 

38  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers  (London,  1865),  vol.  xlv,  pp. 
878-884. 
37  Ibid.,  pp.  884-^5. 
«8  Ibid.,  pp.  883-884. 
3»U.  S.  Stat.  L.,  vol.  xi,  pp.  790-791. 
*^  North  American  Review,  vol.  Ixxiv,  pp.  176-191. 
*i  Joseph  Howe,  The  Reciprocity  Trea^  (Hamilton,  1865),  p.  10. 


26l3  CONCLUSION    OF    THE    RECIPROCITY    TREATY  8 1 

to  the  sea,  when  the  same  is  shipped  to  the  U.  S.  from  the 
Province  of  New  Brunswick."  *^ 

Besides  the  somewhat  doubtful  concession  to  British  sub- 
jects to  fish  along  the  eastern  sea  coasts  of  the  United  States 
north  of  the  36th  parallel  of  north  latitude,  the  further  lib- 
erty of  the  free  navigation  of  Lake  Michigan  was  extended, 
and  a  free  market  for  certain  of  the  provincial  products  was 
offered.  This  last  concession  was  really  the  only  valuable 
one  granted  to  the  inhabitants  of  British  North  America, 
and  it  was  to  balance  this  that  the  British  Government  ac- 
ceded to  the  American  desires  for  greater  fishing  liberties, 
for  the  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  river  and  the  Can- 
adian canals,  and  for  free  lumber  on  the  St.  John  river. 
Economically,  it  appeared  as  though  the  United  States  and 
the  Provinces  were  complementary,  the  one  producing  the 
raw  products,  the  other  the  manufactured  articles.  It  is  true 
that  no  mention  of  manufacfured  goods  was  made  in  the 
treaty  of  reciprocity,  but  at  that  time  the  Canadian  tariff  was 
moderate,  and  it  had  been  strongly  intimated  by  the  British 
minister  at  Washington,  on  June  24,  1851,  that  although  it 
would  be  difficult  to  provide  expressly  for  a  reciprocity  in 
manufactured  goods,  yet  American  manufacturers  need  have 
no  fear  for  the  Canadian  Government  would  always  hold  to 
a  "  most  liberal  commercial  policy."  *'  It  was  hardly  anti- 
cipated by  even  the  bitterest  opponents  of  the  treaty  that  in 
the  short  space  of  five  years  a  strong  spirit  of  protectionism 
should  arise  in  Canada,  which  inevitably  led  to  the  discrim- 
inatory tariffs  of  1858  and  1859,**  and  eventually  to  the  ab- 
rogation of  the  treaty  itself. 

**  Rept.  of  Comm.,  326.  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  1852-1853,  H.  Rept.  No.  4, 
pp.  20-21, 

*»32d  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  i,  p.  89. 

**  Edward  Porritt,  Sixty  Years  of  Protection  in  Canada,  1846- 
1907,  pp.  125-145. 


APPENDIX  A 

Projet  of  Treaty 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  being  equally  de- 
sirous with  Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain  to  avoid 
further  misunderstanding  between  their  respective  citizens 
and  subjects  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  right  of  fishing 
on  the  coasts  of  British  North  America,  secured  to  each  by 
the  first  article  of  a  convention  between  the  United  States  and 
Her  Britannic  Majesty's  government,  signed  at  London  on 
the  20th  of  October,  1818;  and  being  also  desirous  to  regu- 
late the  commerce  and  navigation  between  their  respective 
territories  and  people,  and  more  especially  between  Her  Maj- 
esty's possessions  in  North  America  and  the  United  States, 
in  such  manner  as  to  render  the  same  reciprocally  beneficial 
and  satisfactory,  have  respectively  named  plenipotentiaries, 
&c.,  &c.,  who  have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles: 

Article  I 

It  is  agreed  by  the  high  contracting  parties  that,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  liberty  secured  to  American  fishermen  by  the 
above-named  convention  of  October  20,  1818,  of  taking, 
curing,  and  drying  fish  on  certain  coasts  of  the  British  North 
American  Colonies  therein  defined,  the  inhabitants  of  the 
United  States  shall  have,  in  common  with  the  subjects  of 
Her  Britannic  Majesty,  the  liberty  to  take  fish  of  every  kind, 
except  shell-fish,  on  the  sea-coasts  and  shores,  and  in  the 
bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  of  Canada,  New  Brunswick,  Nova 
Scotia,  Newfoundland,  Prince  Edward  Island,  and  of  the 
several  islands  thereunto  adjacent,  without  being  restricted 
to  any  distance  from  the  shore,  with  permission  to  land  upon 
the  coast  and  shores  of  those  colonies  and  the  islands  thereof, 
and  also  upon  the  Magdalen  Islands,  for  the  purpose  of  dry- 

82 


263]]  PROJECT  OF  TREATY  83 

ing  their  nets  and  curing  their  fish ;  provided  that  in  so  doing 
they  do  not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  private  property,  or 
with  British  fishermen  in  the  peaceable  use  of  any  part  of 
said  coast  in  their  occupancy  for  the  same  purpose. 

It  is  understood  that  the  above-mentioned  Uberty  shall 
not  extend  to  the  right  of  fishing  in  the  estuaries  and  rivers 
hereinafter  designated ;  that  is  to  say, 
which  right  is  reserved  exclusively  for  British  fishermen. 

Article  II 

It  is  agreed  by  the  high  contracting  parties  that  British 
subjects  shall  have,  in  common  with  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  the  hberty  to  take  fish  of  every  kind,  except  shell- 
fish, on  the  sea-coasts  and  shores  of  the  United  States,  (ex- 
cept the  coasts  of  the  State  of  Florida  and  the  adjacent  is- 
lands,) and  on  the  shores  of  the  several  islands  belonging 
thereto,  and  in  the  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  of  the  United 
States  and  of  the  said  islands,  without  being  restricted  to 
any  distance  from  the  shore;  with  permission  to  land  upon 
the  coasts  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  islands  aforesaid, 
(except  the  coast  of  Florida  and  the  adjacent  islands),  for 
the  purpose  of  drying  their  nets  and  curing  their  fish ;  pro- 
vided that  in  so  doing  they  do  not  interfere  with  the  rights 
of  private  property,  or  with  the  fishermen  of  the  United  States 
in  the  use  of  any  part  of  the  said  coasts,  in  their  occupation 
for  the  same  purpose. 

It  is  understood  that  the  above-mentioned  liberty  shall  not 
extend  to  the  right  of  fishing  in  the  rivers  and  estuaries  of 
the  United  States  hereinafter  designated ;  that  is  to  say, 
which  right  is  reserved  exclusively  for  American  fishermen. 

Article  III 

It  is  agreed  that  the  reciprocal  rights  and  privileges 
granted  to  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  the  high  contracting 
parties  in  the  two  foregoing  articles  (first  and  second)  shall. 


S4  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1 854  [^264 

to  the  full  extent  therein  conceded,  be  enjoyed  by  them,  re- 
spectively, to  take,  dry,  and  cure  fish  of  any  kind,  except 
shell-fish,  on  the  sea-coasts  and  shores ;  on  the  continental 
territories  and  possessions  of  either  party;  on  the  coasts  of 
the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  in  the  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  of 
the  said  territories  and  possessions;  and  on  the  coasts  and 
shores  of  the  adjacent  islands  belonging  to  either  party, 
without  being  restricted  to  any  distance  from  the  shores. 

Article  IV 

It  is  agreed  that  the  articles  enumerated  in  the  schedule 
hereunto  annexed,  being  the  growth  and  produce  of  the 
aforesaid  British  Colonies  or  of  the  United  States,  shall  be 
admitted  into  each  country,  respectively,  free  of  duty. 

Schedule 

Grain,  flour,  and  breadstuffs  of  all  kinds. 

Animals  of  all  kinds. 

Fresh,  smoked,  and  salted  meats. 

Cotton-wool,  seeds,  vegetables. 

Undried  fruits,  dried  fruits. 

Fish  of  all  kinds. 

Poultry. 

Hides,  furs,  skins,  or  tails,  undressed. 

Stone  and  marble  in  its  crude  or  unwrought  state. 

Butter,  cheese,  tallow. 

Lard,  horns,  manures. 

Ores  of  metals  of  all  kinds. 

Pitch,  tar,  turpentine,  ashes. 

Timber  and  lumber  of  all  kinds :  round,  hewed,  and  sawed ; 

manufactured  in  whole  or  in  part. 
Firewood. 

Plants,  shrubs,  and  trees. 
Pelts,  wool. 
Fish-oil. 

Rice,  broom-corn,  bark. 
Gypsum,  ground  or  unground. 
Hewn  or  wrought  burr-stones. 
Dye-stufFs. 
Flax,  hemp,  and  tow,  unmanufactured. 


265]  PROJECT  OF  TREATY  85 

Article  V 

It  is  agreed  that  the  citizens  and  inhabitants  of  the  United 
States  shall  have  the  right  to  navigate  the  river  Saint  Law- 
rence and  the  canals  in  Canada,  used  as  the  means  of  com- 
municating with  the  great  lakes  and  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  with 
their  vessels,  boats,  and  crafts  as  fully  and  freely  as  the  sub- 
jects of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  subject  only  to  the  same 
tolls  and  other  assessments  as  now  are  or  may  hereafter  be 
exacted  of  Her  Majesty's  said  subjects ;  it  being  understood, 
however,  that  the  British  government  retains  the  right  of 
suspending  this  privilege,  on  giving  due  notice  thereof  to 
the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  further  agreed  that  if  at  any  time  the  British  govern- 
ment should  exercise  the  said  reserved  right  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  shall  have  the  right  of  suspending,  if  it 
think  fit,  the  operations  of  Article  IV,  of  the  present  treaty, 
for  so  long  as  the  suspension  of  the  free  navigation  of  the 
Saint  Lawrence  or  the  canals  may  continue.  * 

It  is  also  agreed  that  the  citizens  and  inhabitants  of  the 
United  States  shall  have  the  right  to  the  free  navigation  of 
the  river  Saint  John,  in  the  province  of  New  Brunswick,  as 
fully  and  freely  as  the  subjects  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty, 
and  that  no  export  duty  or  any  other  duty  shall  be  levied  on 
lumber  or  timber  of  any  kind  cut  on  that  portion  of  the 
American  territory  in  the  State  of  Maine,  and  watered  by 
the  river  Saint  John  and  its  tributaries,  and  floated  down 
that  river  to  the  sea,  when  the  same  is  shipped  to  the  United 
States  from  the  province  of  New  Brunswick. 

Article  VI 

The  present  treaty  shall  take  effect  whenever  the  laws  re- 
quired to  carry  it  into  operation  shall  have  been  passed  by 
the  Imperial  Parliament  of  Great  Britain  and  the  British 
provincial  assemblies  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  on  the  other ;  and  shall  be  binding  only 


86  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1854  [266 

SO  long  as  said  laws,  whether  now  existing  or  hereinafter  to 
be  enacted,  shall  remain  in  force ;  and  whenever  the  Imperial 
Parliament  or  the  provincial  assemblies  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  on  the  other,  shall  re- 
peal said  laws,  or  either  of  them,  this  treaty  shall  cease  to  be 
binding  on  the  other  party.  Either  party  may,  however, 
after  the  expiration  of  seven  years,  terminate  the  said  treaty, 
by  giving  to  the  other  one  year's  notice  of  its  intention  to 
have  the  same  terminated  and  become  inoperative. 


APPENDIX  B 

Reciprocity  Treaty  Between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain 

Her  Majesty,  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain,  being  equally 
desirous  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  avoid 
further  misunderstanding  between  their  respective  Subjects 
and  Citizens,  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  right  of  Fishing 
on  the  Coasts  of  British  North  America,  secured  to  each  by 
Article  I,  of  a  Convention  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  signed  at  London  on  the  20th  day  of  October, 
1 8 18,  and  being  also  desirous  to  regulate  the  Commerce  and 
Navigation  between  their  respective  Territories  and  People, 
and  more  especially  between  Her  Majesty's  Possessions  in 
North  America  and  the  United  States  in  such  manner  as  to 
render  the  same  reciprocally  beneficial  and  satisfactory,  have 
respectively  named  Plenipotentiaries  to  confer  and  agree 
thereupon,  that  is  to  say:  Her  Majesty,  the  Queen  of  the 
United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  James,  Earl 
of  Elgin  and  Kincardine,  Lord  Bruce,  and  Elgin,  a  Peer  of 
the  United  Kingdom,  Knight  of  the  Most  Ancient  and  Most 
Noble  Order  of  the  Thistle,  and  Governor  General  in  and 
over  all  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Provinces  on  the  Continent 
of  North  America,  and  in  and  over  the  Island  of  Prince  Ed- 
ward; and  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
William  L.  Marcy,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States, 
who,  after  having  communicated  to  each  other  their  re- 
spective full  Powers,  found  in  good  and  due  form,  have 
agreed  upon  the  following  Articles: 

Article  I 

It  is  agreed  by  the  High  Contracting  Parties,  that  in  ad- 
dition to  the  liberty  secured  to  the  United  States  fishermen 

87 


88  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY   OF    1 854  [268 

by  the  above-mentioned  Convention  of  October  20,  1818,  of 
taking,  curing,  and  drying  fish  on  certain  Coasts  of  the  Brit- 
ish North  American  Colonies  therein  defined,  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  United  States  shall  have  in  common  v^ith  the 
subjects  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  the  liberty  to  take  fish  of 
every  kind,  except  shell-fish  on  the  sea  coasts  and  shores,  and 
in  the  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  of  Canada,  New  Brunswick, 
Nova  Scotia,  Prince  Edward's  Island,  and  of  the  several 
Islands  thereunto  adjacent,  without  being  restricted  to  any 
distance  from  the  shore;  with  permission  to  land  upon  the 
coasts  and  shores  of  those  Colonies  and  the  Islands  thereof, 
and  also  upon  the  Magdalen  Island  for  the  purpose  of  dry- 
ing their  nets  and  curing  their  fish  ;  provided  that  in  so  doing, 
they  do  not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  private  property  or 
British  fishermen  in  the  peaceable  use  of  any  part  of  the 
said  coast  in  their  occupancy  for  the  same  purpose. 

It  is  understood  that  the  above-mentioned  liberty  applies 
solely  to  the  sea  fishery,  and  that  the  salmon  and  shad  fish- 
eries, and  all  fisheries  in  rivers,  and  the  mouths  of  rivers,  are 
hereby  reserved  exclusively  for  British  fishermen. 

And  it  is  further  agreed,  that  in  order  to  prevent  or  settle 
any  disputes  as  to  the  places  to  which  the  reservation  of  ex- 
clusive right  to  British  fishermen  contained  in  this  Article, 
and  that  of  fishermen  of  the  United  States  contained  in  the 
next  succeeding  Article,  apply,  each  of  the  High  Contracting 
Parties,  on  the  application  of  either  to  the  other,  shall,  within 
six  months  thereafter,  appoint  a  Commissioner.  The  said 
Commissioners  before  proceeding  to  any  business,  shall  make 
and  subscribe  a  solemn  declaration  that  they  will  impartially 
and  carefully  examine  and  decide  to  the  best  of  their  judg- 
ment, and  according  to  justice  and  equity,  without  fear, 
favor  or  affection  to  their  own  country,  upon  all  such  places 
as  are  intended  to  be  reserved  and  excluded  from  the  com- 
mon liberty  of  fishing  under  this  and  the  next  succeeding 
Article ;  and  such  declaration  shall  be  entered  on  the  record 
of  their  proceedings.     The  Commissioners  shall  name  some 


269]  RECIPROCITY    TREATY  89 

third  person  to  act  as  an  Arbitrator  or  Umpire  in  any  case 
or  cases,  on  which  they  may  themselves  differ  in  opinion.  If 
they  should  not  be  able  to  agree  upon  the  name  of  such  third 
person,  they  shall  each  name  a  person,  and  it  shall  be  deter- 
mined by  lot  which  of  the  two  persons  so  named  shall  be  the 
Arbitrator  or  Umpire  in  cases  of  difference  or  disagreement 
between  the  Commissioners.  The  person  so  to  be  chosen  to 
be  Arbitrator  or  Umpire  shall,  before  proceeding  to  act  as 
such  in  any  case,  make  and  subscribe  a  solemn  declaration 
in  a  form  similar  to  that  which  shall  already  have  been  made 
and  subscribed  by  the  Commissioners,  which  shall  be  entered 
on  the  record  of  their  proceedings.  In  the  event  of  the 
death,  absence,  or  incapacity  of  either  of  the  Commissioners 
or  of  the  Arbitrator  or  Umpire,  or  of  their  or  his  omitting, 
declining  or  ceasing  to  act  as  such  Commissioner,  Arbitrator 
or  Umpire,  another  and  different  person  shall  be  appointed 
or  named  as  aforesaid,  and  shall  make  and  subscribe  such 
declaration  as  aforesaid. 

Such  Commissioners  shall  proceed  to  examine  the  Coasts 
of  the  North  American  Provinces  and  of  the  United  States 
embraced  within  the  provisions  of  the  first  and  second  Ar- 
ticles of  this  treaty,  and  shall  designate  the  places  reserved 
by  the  said  Articles  from  the  common  rights  of  fishing 
therein. 

The  decision  of  the  Commissioners  and  of  the  Arbitrator 
or  Umpire  shall  be  given  in  writing  in  each  case,  and  shall 
be  signed  by  them  respectively. 

The  High  Contracting  Parties  hereby  solemnly  engage  to 
consider  the  decision  of  the  Commissioners  conjointly,  or 
of  the  Arbitrator  or  Umpire,  as  the  case  may  be,  as  absolutely 
final  and  conclusive  in  each  case  decided  upon  by  them  or 
him,  respectively. 

Article  II 

It  is  agreed  by  the  High  Contracting  Parties  that  British 
subjects  shall  have,  in  common  with  the  citizens  of  the 


90  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1854  [^270 

United  States,  the  liberty  to  take  fish  of  every  kind,  except 
shell-fish,  on  the  Eastern  sea  coasts  and  shores  of  the  United 
States,  North  of  the  36th  parallel  of  North  Latitude,  and  on 
the  shores  of  the  several  Islands  thereunto  adjacent,  and  in 
the  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  of  the  said  sea  coasts  and  shores 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the  said  Islands,  without  being 
restricted  to  any  distance  from  the  shore,  with  permission  to 
land  upon  the  said  coasts  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
Islands  aforesaid  for  the  purpose  of  drying  their  nets  and 
curing  their  fish ;  provided  that  in  so  doing  they  do  not  inter- 
fere with  the  rights  of  private  property,  or  with  the  fisher- 
men of  the  United  States  in  the  peaceable  use  of  any  part  of 
the  said  coasts  in  their  occupancy  for  the  same  purpose. 

It  is  understood  that  the  above-mentioned  liberty  applies 
solely  to  the  sea  fishery,  and  that  salmon  and  shad  fisheries, 
and  all  fisheries  in  rivers  and  mouths  of  rivers  are  hereby 
reserved  exclusively  for  fishermen  of  the  United  States. 

Article  III 

It  is  agreed,  that  the  Articles  enumerated  in  the  Schedule 
hereunto  annexed,  being  the  growth  and  produce  of  the  afore- 
said British  Colonies  or  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  ad- 
mitted into  each  Country  respectively  free  of  duty: 

Schedule 

Grain,  flour,  and  breadstuffs  of  all  kinds. 

Animals  of  all  kinds. 

Fresh,  smoked,  and  salted  meats. 

Cotton-wool,  seeds  and  vegetables. 

Undried  fruits,  dried  fruits. 

Fish  of  all  kinds. 

Products  of  fish  and  of  all  other  creatures  living  in  the  water. 

Poultry,  eggs. 

Hides,  furs,  skins  or  tails,  undressed. 

Stone  and  marble  in  its  crude  or  tmwrought  state. 

Slate. 

Butter,  cheese,  tallow. 


271J  RECIPROCITY   TREATY  9I 

Lard,  horns,  manures. 

Ores  of  metals  of  all  kinds. 

Coal. 

Pitch,  tar,  turpentine,  ashes. 

Timber  and  lumber  of  all  kinds :  round,  hewed,  and  sawed ; 

unmanufactured  in  whole  or  in  part. 
Firewood. 

Plants,  shrubs,  and  trees. 
Pelts,  wool. 
Fish-oil. 

Rice,  broom-corn,  bark. 
Gypsum,  ground  or  unground. 

Hewn  or  wrought  or  unwrought  burr  or  grindstones. 
Dye-stuffs. 

Unmanufactured  tobacco. 
Rags. 

Article  IV 

It  is  agreed  that  the  citizens  and  inhabitants  of  the  United 
States  shall  have  the  right  to  navigate  the  river  St.  Law- 
rence and  the  canals  in  Canada,  used  as  the  means  of  com- 
municating between  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  Atlantic  Ocean, 
with  their  vessels,  boats  and  crafts,  as  fully  and  freely  as  the 
subjects  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  subject  only  to  the  same 
tolls  and  other  assessments  as  now  are  or  may  hereafter  be 
exacted  of  Her  Majesty's  said  subjects,  it  being  understood, 
however,  that  the  British  Government  retains  the  right  of 
suspending  this  privilege  on  giving  due  notice  thereof  to  the 
Government  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  further  agreed  that  if  at  any  time  the  British  Govern- 
ment should  exercise  the  said  reserved  right,  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  shall  have  the  right  of  suspending, 
if  it  think  fit,  the  operation  of  Article  III,  of  the  present 
treaty  in  so  far  as  the  Province  of  Canada  is  aflfected 
thereby,  for  so  long  as  the  suspension  of  the  free  navigation 
of  the  river  St.  Lawrence  or  the  Canals  may  continue. 

It  is  further  agreed  that  British  subjects  shall  have  the 
right  freely  to  navigate  Lake  Michigan  with  their  vessels, 


92  CANADIAN    RECIPROCITY   TREATY    OF    1 854  [272 

boats  and  crafts,  so  long  as  the  privilege  of  navigating  the 
river  St.  Lawrence  secured  to  American  citizens  by  the  above 
clause  of  the  present  Article  shall  continue,  and  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  further  engages  to  urge  upon  the 
State  Governments  to  secure  to  the  subjects  of  Her  Britan- 
nic Majesty,  the  use  of  the  several  State  Canals  on  terms  of 
equality  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States. 

And  it  is  further  agreed  that  no  Export  duty  or  other  duty 
shall  be  levied  on  lumber  or  timber  of  any  kind  cut  on  that 
portion  of  the  American  territory  in  the  State  of  Maine, 
watered  by  the  river  St.  John  and  its  tributaries  and  floated 
down  that  river  to  the  sea,  when  the  same  is  shipped  to  the 
United  States  from  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick. 

Article  V 

The  present  treaty  shall  take  effect  as  soon  as  the  laws  re- 
quired to  carry  it  into  operation  shall  have  been  passed  by 
the  Imperial  Parliament  of  Great  Britain  and  by  the  Provin- 
cial Parliaments  of  those  of  the  British  North  American 
Colonies  which  are  affected  by  this  treaty  on  the  one  hand, 
and  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  on  the  other.  Such 
assent  having  been  given,  the  treaty  shall  remain  in  force  for 
ten  years  from  the  date  at  which  it  may  come  into  operation, 
and  further  until  the  expiration  of  twelve  months  after  either 
of  the  High  Contracting  Parties  shall  give  notice  to  the  other 
of  its  wish  to  terminate  the  same ;  each  of  the  High  Contract- 
ing Parties  being  at  liberty  to  give  such  notice  to  the  other  at 
the  end  of  the  said  term  of  ten  years,  or  at  any  time  after- 
wards. 

It  is  clearly  understood,  however,  that  this  stipulation  is 
not  intended  to  affect  the  reservation  made  by  Article  IV, 
of  the  present  treaty  with  regard  to  the  right  of  temporarily 
suspending  the  operation  of  Articles  III  and  IV  thereof. 


273^  RECIPROCITY   TREATY  93 

Article  VI 

And  it  is  hereby  further  agreed  that  the  provisions  and 
stipulations  of  the  foregoing  Articles  shall  extend  to  the 
Island  of  Newfoundland,  so  far  as  they  are  applicable  to  that 
Colony.  But  if  the  Imperial  Parliament  of  Newfoundland, 
or  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  shall  not  embrace  in 
their  laws  enacted  for  carrying  this  treaty  into  effect,  the 
Colony  of  Newfoundland,  then  this  Article  shall  be  of  no 
effect,  but  the  omission  to  make  provision  by  law  to  give  it 
effect,  by  either  of  the  legislative  bodies  aforesaid,  shall  not 
in  any  way  impair  the  remaining  Articles  of  this  treaty. 

Article  VII 

The  present  treaty  shall  be  duly  ratified  and  the  mutual 
exchange  of  ratification  shall  take  place  in  Washington  within 
six  months  from  the  date  thereof,  or  earlier  if  possible. 

In  faith  whereof,  We,  the  respective  Plenipotentiaries  have 
signed  this  treaty  and  have  hereunto  affixed  our  Seals. 

Done  in  triplicate,  at  Washington,  the  Fifth  day  of  June, 
Anno  Domini,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-four. 
(Signed)     Elgin  and  Kincardine, 

L.S. 
W.  L.  Marcy, 

L.S. 
Certified  Copy, 

L.  Oliphant,  Private  Secretary. 


INDEX. 

Aberdeen,  Lord,  17.  Elgin,  Lord,   19,  23,  26,  27,  33, 

Andrews,  Israel,  appointed  spe-  35,  38,  43,  45,  47,  64,  74,  75,  76, 

cial  agent  to  Canada,  61,  66,  ^^,  78, 

67;   itemized  list  of  expendi-  Everett,    Edward,    Secretary    of 

tures,    6^72;    despatches    to  State,  52,  58,  59,  60. 

Marcy,   74-75;   efforts  in  be- 
half of  reciprocity,  74-75.  Fillmore,  President  Millard,  op- 
posed to  reciprocity  treaty,  but 
Bayard,  Senator  Jas.  A.,  49.  favors    reciprocal    legislation. 
Boards  of  Trade,  Montreal,  16;  39,  47,  52. 

Quebec,  16;  Toronto,  16.  Fisheries    Question,   39,   40,   41, 

Buchanan,  Jas.,  63,  66,  75,  76.  43,  47,  51,  55,  64,  65,  66,  67. 

Bulwer,   Sir   Henry  Lytton,  31,  Fuller,  Representative  Thos.  J., 

32,  ZZ,  34,  35.  Zl,  38,  39-  introduces  bill  in  House  favor- 
ing reciprocity,  50. 
Canada,  canal  system,  9,  10,  13, 

15,  16,  38,  46;  efforts  to  secure  Gladstone,  Wm.  E.,  15,  16,  17. 

reciprocity  with  U.  S.,  9,  17,  Great  Britain,  Tariff  Act  of  1828, 

20,  21,  31;  business  conditions,  12;   Act  of   1842,   12;  Act  of 

15,  16,  30,  31 ;  legislation  favor-  1843,  13;  Act  of  1844,  12;  Act 

ing,  22,  23,  24,  25;  politics  in,  of  1846,  13. 

26,  2^ ;  hostility  in,  as  result  of  Grey,  Lord,  20,  29,  33. 

lack  of  cooperation  on  part  of  Grinnell,  Joseph,  19,  20,  21,  23, 

U.  S.,  47.  24. 
Cathcart,  Earl  of,  15,  17. 

Clarendon,  Lord,  63,  64,  66,  75,  Hamlin,  Senator  Hannibal,  49. 

76.  Harris,    Representative   Thomas 

Clayton,  John  M.,  24,  32,  33,  35.  L.,     introduces     bill     favoring 

Collamer,  Senator  Jacob,  ^^.  reciprocity  with  Canada,  35. 

Colonial'  preference,   11,   12,   13,  Head,  Sir  Edmund,  74. 

15,  28,  29,  30.  Hincks,   Sir  Francis,  36,  42,  43, 

Corn  laws,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14,  16.  45,  46,  dz- 
Crampton,  John  G.,   19,  24,  25, 

41,  43,  47,  52,  55,  62,  63,  66,  68.  Lawrence,  Abbott,  51. 

Davis,  Senator  John,  introduces  McLane,   Representative   Robert 

bill   in    Senate    favoring  reci-  M.,  favors  reciprocity,  z^^  33, 

procity,  48.  36,  37. 

Derrick,  W.  S.,  38.  Mall'ory,  Senator  Stephen  R.,  49. 

Dix,  Senator  John  A.,  18,  20,  21,  Malmesbury,  Earl  of,  51,  52. 

22.  Marcy,  William  L.,  Secretary  of 

Dobbin,  Jas.  C,  Secretary  of  the  State,  enters  upon  duties,  51 ; 

Navy,  instructions  to  Commo-  discusses  at  Berkeley  Springs, 

dore  Shubrick,  54,  55.  Va.,  the  projet  of  reciprocity 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  favors  reci-  treaty,   55-61 ;    instructions   to 

procity,  34,  35,  37.  Andrews,  61-62,  (fj,  68,  75 ;  in- 

95 


96 


INDEX. 


[276 


structions  to  Buchanan,  64-65 ; 
letter  to  Buchanan,  66;  Oli- 
phant's  comments  upon,  77-79. 

Merritt,  Hamilton,  19,  25. 

Metcalfe,  Lord,  26. 

Milling  interests,  13,  14. 

Oliphant,  Laurence,  77-79. 

Pakington,  Lord,  41,  42,  43. 

Palmerston,  Lord,  24. 

Pearce,  Senator  Jas.  A.,  21. 

Peel,  Sir  Robert,  12,  14,  15,  16. 

Perry,  Commodore  Matthew  C, 
41. 

Pierce,  President  Franklin,  61, 
68,  69. 

Pratt,  Senator  Thomas  G.,  45. 

Reciprocity,  constitutional  objec- 
tions against,  49,  51,  60,  64; 
Andrews  appointed  special 
agent  to  Canada  in  behalf  of, 
62;  itemized  list  of  expendi- 
tures  in   connection   with   the 


activities  of  Mr.  Andrews,  69- 
72;  treaty  concluded,  ^^,  78, 
79;  ratified,  79. 

Redesdale,  Lord,  62. 

Rusk,  Senator  Thos.  J,,  45. 

Seymour,  Sir  George,  41,  42,  55. 

Seymour,  Representative  David 
L.,  introduces  bill  in  House 
favoring  reciprocity,  50. 

Shubrick,  Commodore  W.  B., 
54,  55. 

Sperry,  Prof.  Chas.  S.,  55. 

Sperry,  Mrs.  Edith  Marcy,  55, 

Taylor,  President  Zachary,  34. 
Timber,  14,  15,  81. 
Toombs,  Senator  Robert,  ^^. 

Walker,  Robert  J.,  17,  18,  19. 
Webster,    Daniel,    Secretary    of 

State,  37,  38,  39,  41,  43,  52. 
Workman,  George  S.,  16. 


Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies 

in  Historical  and  Political  Science 


rhe  University  Studies  will  continue  to  publish,  as  heretofore, 
the  results  of  recent  investigations  in  History,  Political  Economy, 
and  Political  Science. 

The  titles  given  below  are  now  announced  ;  other  numbers  will 
follow  from  time  to  time. 


The  Presidential  Campaign  of  1832.    By  Samuel  R.  Gammon,  Jr. 

The  Canadian  Reciprocity  Treaty  of  1854.    By  C.  C.  Tansill, 

Recent  Problems  in  Admiralty  Jurisdiction.     By  Edgar  T.  Fell. 

The  Creation  of  the  Presidency,  1 775-1 789;  A  Study  in  Constitutional 
History.     By  Charles  C.  Thach,  Jr. 

Paper  Money  in  Maryland,  1727-1789.     By  Kathryn  L,  Behrens* 

Constitutional  Doctrines  of  Mr.  Justice  0.  W.  Holmes.     By  Dorset 
Richardson. 


The  cost  of  subscription  for  the  regular  annual  series,  comprising 
about  600  pages,  is  $6.00.  Single  numbers,  or  special  monographs, 
at  special  prices.  Complete  contents  of  previous  volumes  are  given 
on  pages  vrii-xii. 

i 


studies  in  History,  Economics  and  Public  Law 

EDITED  BY 

THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL   SCIENCE 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


VOLUME  XC.     1920. 
Prison  Methods  in  New  York  State. 


(30^  India's  Demand  for  Transportation. 


iilil 


547  pp.    Price,  cloth,  Ss.oo. 

By  Philip  Klein,  Ph.D. 
By  William  E.  Weld,  Ph.D. 
VOLUME  XCI.     ip20.    636  pp.    Price,  cloth,  S6.00. 
(aoTi  *The  Influence  of  Oversea  Expansion  on  England  to  1700. 

By  James  E.  Gillespie,  Ph.D. 
,  [ao81  International  Labor  Legislation.  By  I.  F.  Ayusawa,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XCn.     igao.    433  PP-    Price,  cloth,  Ss.oo. 
(209]  The  Public  Life  of  William  Shirley.  By  George  A.  Wood,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XCm.     1920.    460  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $5.50. 
faiol  *The  English  Reform  Bill  of  1867.  By  Joseph  H.  Park,  Ph.D. 

.  [31 1]  The  Policy  of  the  United  States  as  regards  Intervention. 

By  Charles  E.  Martin,  Ph.D. 
VOLUME  XCIV.     1920-1931.    493  pp.    Price,  cloth,  S5.50. 
(313)  *<}atastrophe  and  Social  Change.  By  S.  H.  Prince,  Ph.D. 

Intermarriage  in  New  York  City.  By  Julius  Drachsler,  Ph.D. 

The  Ratification  of  the  Federal  Constitution  by  the  State  of  New  York. 

By  C.  E.  Miner,  Ph.D. 
VOLUME  XCV.     1930-1931.    554  pp.    Price,  cloth,  S6.00. 

taisi  ^Railroad  Capitalization.  By  James  C.  Bonbright,  Ph.D. 

ail^  ^American  Apprenticeship  and  Industrial  Education. 

By  Paul  H.  Douglas,  Ph.D. 
VOLUME  XCVI.     1931.    539  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $6.50. 
(317]  H>pening  a  Highway  to  the  Pacific,     1838-1846. 

By  James  Christy  Bell,  Jr.,  Ph.D. 
(318]  Parliamentary  Franchise  Reform  in  England  from  1885  to  1918. 

By  Homer  L.  Morris,  Ph.D. 
(319]  The  Peaceable  Americans.     1860-61.  By  Mary  Scrugham,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XCVn.     1921.     752  pp.     Price,  cloth,  $8.50. 

i22o]  The  Working  Forces  in  Japanese  Politics.  By  Uichi  Iwasaki,  Ph.D. 

3311  Social  Aspects  of  the  Treatment  of  the  Insane.         By  J.  A.  Goldberg,  Ph.D. 
333]  The  Free  Negro  in  Marylana.  By  James  M.  Wright,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XCVin.     192 1.    338  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 
[3S3]  Origins  of  Modem  German  Colonialism,  1871-1885. 

By  Mary  E.  Townsend,  Ph.D. 
[324]  Japan's  Financial  Relations  with  the  United  States.      By  G.  G.  Odate,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XCIX.     1931-33.    64Q  pp.     Price,  cloth,  S7.00 
(33^  *The  Economic  History  of  China:  A  Study  of  Soil  Exhaustion. 

By  Mabel  Peng-hua  Lee,  Ph.D. 
(aa^  Central  and  Local  Finance  in  China.  By  Chuan  Shih  Li,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  C.     1931.    553  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $6.00. 
(aar]  ♦Contemporary  British  Opinion  during  the  Franco-Prussian  War. 

By  Dora  Neill  Raymond,  Ph.D. 
(23^  French  Contemporary  Opinion  of  the  Russian  Revolution  of  1905. 

By  Encarnacion  Alzona,  Ph.D. 
VOLUME  CI.     1931-32.     517  pp.     Price,  cloth,  $5.50. 
[339J  State  Taxation  of  Personal  Incomes.  By  Alzada  Comstock,  Ph.D. 

1230]  The  Whig  Party  in  Pennsylvania.  By  Henry  R.  Mueller,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  Cn.     1922. 
[231]  The  Evolution  of  People's  Banks.  By  Donald  S.  Tucker.     Ph.D. 

[233]  The  Bank  of  the  State  of  Missouri.  By  John  Ray  Cable 

VOLUME  cm.     1932. 
[333]  The  Relation  of  British  Policy  to  the  Declaration  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

By  Leonard  Axel  Lawson,     Ph.D. 
[334]  Ledru-RoUin  and  the  Second  French  Republic.  By  Alvan  R.  Calman. 

VOLUME  CIV.     1933, 
•  [235]  The  Populist  Movement  in  Georgia.  By  Alex.  Mathews  Arnett, 


Price,  $3.50. 
Price,  $i.es. 


Price, 
Price, 


$3.00. 
$2-75. 


Price,  $4.50. 


Price, 
Price, 


$3.00. 
$2.00. 

•i.So. 
S2.25. 

Price,  $1.50. 


Price, 
Price. 


Price, 
Price, 


$2.00. 

$3-50. 


Price.  $2.2s. 

Price,  $2.25. 
Price,  $1.50. 


Price,  Si.so. 
Price,  $2.50. 
Price,  $4.00. 


Price.  $2.25- 
Price.  $I.2S. 


Price,  $5-00. 
Price,  $2.00. 


Price,  $4.50. 
Price,  $1.25. 

Price,  $2.50. 
Price,  $2.75. 

Price,    2.7S- 
(In  press) 


Price,    1.50 
(In  press.) 

(In  press) 


Th*  price  for  each  separate  monograph  is  for  paper-covered  copies;  separate  monographs  marked  with  an 
asterisk  can  he  supplied  hound  in  cloth,  for  7Sc.  additional.     All  prices  are  net. 

The  set  of  one  hundred  and  one  volumes,  covering  monographs  1-230,  is  offered,  bound,  for  S390; 

except  that  Volumes  H,  in,  IV,  and  VH   can  be  supplied  only  in  part.  Volume  n.  No.  i, 

Volume  in.  No.  2,  Volume  IV,  No.  3,  and  Volume  VII,  No.  3,  being  out  of  print. 

Volumes  II,  HI,  and  IV,  as  described  in  the  last  sentence,  and  Volume  XXV, 

can  now  be  supplied  only  in  connection  with  complete  sets,  but  the 

separate  monographs  of  each  of  these  volumes  are  available 

unless  marked  "not  sold  separately" 

For  further  information,  apply  to 

LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  55  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York. 

P.  S.  KING  &  SON,  Ltd.,  Orchard  House,  Westminster,  London. 


MANUAL  OF 
COLLECTIONS  OF  TREATIES 

AND  OF 
COLLECTIONS  RELATING  TO  TREATIES 

By  DENYS  peter  MYERS 

This  is  the  first  comprehensive  bibliography  that  has  ever  been 
undertaken  of  the  treaty  collections  of  all  times  and  countries.  It  will 
be  invaluable  as  a  guide  to  those  who  wish  to  get  on  the  track  of  the 
text  of  any  particular  treaty  or  publication  of  the  sort. 

The  material  is  arranged  under  four  main  headings :  General  Collec- 
tions, Collections  by  States,  Collections  by  Subject-Matter,  and  Inter- 
national Administration. 

There  are  extensive  notices  of  published  diplomatic  correspondence 
such  as  the  American  Papers  on  Foreign  Relations  and  the  Congressional 
Documents,  British  Blue  Books,  French  Yellow  Books,  Italian  Green 
Books,  etc.  Special  attention  has  been  given  to  the  Latin  American 
Memorias  of  the  ministers  of  foreign  relations. 

Certain  essential  parts,  including  the  Preface  and  the  Table  of  Con- 
tents, are  in  both  English  and  French.  The  titles  of  the  works  are  in 
the  original  languages.  The  volume  is  the  result  of  years  of  patient 
labor  on  the  part  of  the  author,  who  is  a  specialist  in  the  subject.  For 
students  of  international  relations  and  in  all  libraries  its  place  as  a  book 
of  reference  is  assured. 

Price,  $7.50 

HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
44  Randall  Hall  Cambridge,  Mass. 

Ui 


AN  ECONOMIC  HISTORY 
OF  ROME 

TO  THE  END  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 

By  TENNEY  frank 
Professor  of  Latin  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University 

310  pages.    $2.50. 

A  sketch  of  Roman  economic  history  with  a  description  of  industrial 
methods  employed  in  the  days  of  Cicero  and  Augustus.  The  book  is 
intended  for  general  readers  interested  in  economic  history  and  for 
college  classes  in  Roman  history. 

CONTENTS 

Chapter  I,  Agriculture  in  Early  Latium;  Chapter  II,  The  Early 
Trade  of  Latium  and  Etruria ;  Chapter  III,  The  Rise  of  the  Peasantry ; 
Chapter  IV,  New  Lands  for  Old ;  Chapter  V,  Roman  Coinage ;  Chap- 
ter VI,  The  Establishment  of  the  Plantation;  Chapter  VII,  Industry 
and  Commerce ;  Chapter  VIII,  The  Gracchan  Revolution ;  Chapter  IX, 
Public  Finances ;  Chapter  X,  The  Plebs  Urbana ;  Chapter  XI,  Industry 
at  the  End  of  the  Republic ;  Chapter  XII,  Industry,  continued ;  Chap- 
ter 13,  Capital ;  Chapter  XIV,  Commerce ;  Chapter  XV,  The  Laborer ; 
Chapter  XVI,  The  Exhaustion  of  the  Soil. 


The  Johns  Hopkins  Press 

Baltimore,  Maryland 


ir 


ALBERT  SHAW  LECTURES  ON   DIP- 
LOMATIC HISTORY 


1899.  John  H.  Latan6.  The  Diplomatic  Relations  of 
the  United  States  and  Spanish  America.  1900. 
(Out  of  print.) 

1900.  James  Morton  Callahan.  The  Diplomatic 
History  of  the  Southern  Confederacy.  1901. 
(Out  of  print.) 

1906.  Jesse  Siddall  Reeves.  American  Diplomacy 
under  Tyler  and  Polk.    1907.    $1.75. 

1907.  Elbert  Jay  Benton.  International  Law  and 
Diplomacy  of  the  Spanish-American  War.  1908. 
S1.75. 

1909.  Ephraim  Douglas  Adams.  British  Interests 
and  Activities  in  Texas,  1838-1846.    1910.  $1.75. 

1911.  Charles  Oscar  Paullin.  Diplomatic  Nego- 
tiations of  American  Naval  Ofl&cers,  1778-1883. 
1912.     $2.25. 

1912.  Isaac  J.  Cox.  The  West  Florida  Controversy, 
1798-1813.     1918.     $3.00. 

1913.  William  R.  Manning.  Early  Diplomatic  Re- 
lations between  the  United  States  and  Mexico. 

1916.  $2.50. 

1914.  Frank  A.  Updike.  The  Diplomacy  of  the  War 
of  1812.     1915.     $2.75. 

1917.  Payson  J.  Treat.  Early  Diplomatic  Relations 
between  the  United  States  and  Japan,  1853-1865. 

1917.  $2.75. 


THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 

BALTIMORE,  MARYLAND 


A  REPRINT  OF 

ECONOMIC  TRACTS 


The  Johns  Hopkins  Press  invites  subscriptions  to  a  reprint  of  four  important 
economic  essays  of  the  seventeenth  century,  to  be  issued  consecutively  under  the 
editorial  direction  of  Professor  Hollander: — 

A  Treatise  of  the  Canker  of  Enj^lands  Common  Wealth.  By  Gerkard  de 
Malynbs.    London,  1601. 

A  Discourse  of  Trade,  from  England  unto  the  East  Indies:  Answering  to 
diverse  Objections  which  are  usually  made  against  the  same.  By  Thomas 
MuN.    London,  1621. 

The  Treasure  of  Traffike.  Or  a  Discourse  of  Forraigne  Trade.  By  Lewes 
Roberts.    London,  1641. 

Brief  Observations  concerning  Trade,  and  Interest  of  Money.  By  Josiah 
Child.    London,  1668. 

Of  the  tracts  heretofore  reprinted,  a  limited  number  can  yet  be  obtained  as 
follows.  As  the  editions  approach  exhaustion,  the  prices  indicated  are  likely  to 
be  increased  without  notice: — 

Asgill,  "Several  Assertions  Proved"  (London,  1696),  Price,  50  centi. 

Barbon,  "  A  Discourse  of  Trade  "  (London,  1690),  Price,  50  cents. 

Berkeley,  "The  Querist":  Parts  I,  U,  III  (Dublin,  1735-37),  Price,  Ji.oo. 

Fauquier,  "An  Essay  on  Ways  and  Means"  (London,  1756),  Price,  50  cents. 

Fortrey,  "Englands  Interest  Considered"  (Cambridge,  1663),  Price,  50  cents. 

Longe,  "A  Refutation  of  the  Wage-Fund  Theory"  (London,  1866),  Price,  $1.00. 

Malthus,  "An  Inquiry  into  the  Nature  and  Progress  of  Rent"  (London,  1815) 
(Out  of  print). 

Massie,  "  The  Natural  Rate  of  Interest "  (London,  1750),  Price,  50  cents. 
North,  "Discourses  upon  Trade"  (London,  1691),  Price,  50  cents. 
Ricardo,  "Three  Letters  on  'The  Price  of  Gold'"  (London,  1809)  (Out  of  print), 
Vanderlint,  "  Money  Answers  All  Things"  (London,  1734),  Price,  $1.00. 

West,  "Essay  on  the  Application  of  Capital  to  Land"  (London,  1815),  Price, 
$1.00. 


THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 

BALTIMORE,  MD. 


Foreign  Rights  and  Interests  in  China 

BY 

W.  W.  WILLOUGHBY 

PROFESSOR  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  AT  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS 

university;  legal  advisor  to  the  CHINESE 

REPUBLIC,   1916-17 


614  Pages.    8vo.    $7.50 

BECAUSE  of  its  comprehensive  and  authoritative 
character,  the  work  will  be  indispensable  to 
merchants  or  banks  having  commercial  or  finan- 
cial interests  in  China,  to  diplomatic  and  consular 
officials,  to  students  of  Far  Eastern  international 
politics,  and  to  scholars  interested  in  the  history 
and  present  political  and  legal  institutions  of  China. 


The  West  Florida  Controversy 
of  1798-1813 

A  Study  in  American  Diplomacy 

BY 

ISAAC  JOSLIN  COX 

ASSOCIATE  PROFESSOR  OF  HISTORY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  CINCINNATI 


710  Pages.     12mo.     $3.00. 

The  volume  deals  with  the  secret  intrigues  of  statesmen  and 
diplomats  in  the  capitals  of  America  and  Europe  on  the  one  hand, 
and  with  the  aggressive,  irresponsible  movements  of  impatient 
frontiersmen  on  the  other.  Professor  Cox  thinks  that  the  sturdy 
pioneers  of  the  Southwest  outstripped  the  diplomats,  and  that 
their  deeds  were  the  decisive  factors  in  the  settlement  of  the  long 
and  bitter  controversy  that  was  waged  over  West  Florida. 


The  Johns  Hopkins  Press 

Baltimore,  Maryland 


JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

IN 

Historical  and  Political  Science 

Edited  b^  HERBERT  B.  ADAMS,  1882-igoz 

*  Kot  sold  aeparataly. 

FIRST  SERIES.— 1883. 

(Volume  aold  only  wltb  complete  set.) 

I.  Am  iBtredsotlon  to  Amerlaan  Inititutlonal  Hlitorj.    By  B.  A.  Fbbiuan.     26  cents. 

II.  Tlie  eermanio  Origin  of  Kew  Enfland  Towns.     By  H.  B.  Adamb.     60  cents. 

OX.  Looal  OoTarnmant  In  Illinoii.     By   Albkbt   Shaw. — Local   aoTernmant  In  Pannsyi 

Tania.     By  B.  R.  L.  QodU).     30  cents. 
IT.  gaxan  Tithlsrman  in  Amarlaa.     By  H.  B.  Adahs.     60  cents. 
T.  Loaal  Oorarnmant  In  Xlohlgan  and  the  Korthweat.    By  E.  W.  Bbuis.     25  cents. 
TL  Pariah  Znatitntiona  of  Maryland.     By  Edward  Ingub.     40  cents. 
*TII.  Old  Maryland  Manors.     By  John  HsMSLaT  Johnson. 
nil.  Korman  Oonatablaa  in  America.    By  H.  B.  Adams.     60  cents. 
ZX-X.  Tillar*  Oonunonitiea  of  Oapo  Ann  and  Salam.    By  H.  B.  Adams.     50  cents. 

XI.  Tba  Genaaia  of  a  Kaw  England  State.     By  A.  Johnston.    80  cents. 
*XII.  Local  OoTamment  and  Bohoola  in  South  Carolina.     By  B.  J.  Bamaoi. 

SECOND  SERIES.— 1884. 

(Volume  sold  only  with  complete  set.) 
•I-n.  Methods  of  Hiatoriaal  Study.     By  H.  B.  Adams. 
in.  The  Paat  and  Preaant  of  PoUtioal  Economy.    By  B.  T.  Blt.     86  cents. 
IT.  lamnel  Adams,  the  Man  of  the  Town  Maatlnf.    By  Jamis  K.  Hosmbb.     85  cents. 
T-VI.  Taxation  in  the  ITnited  Stataa.    By  Hinbt  Cabudb  Adams.    60  cents. 
TXI.  Inatitational  Barlnninra  In  a  Weitam  State.     By  Jebsi  Mact.     26  cents. 
▼in-ZX.  Indian  Money  In  Kew  England,  etc.     By  William  B.  WmiDiif.     60  cent*. 
*X.  Town  and  Oounty  Oovernment  in  the  Coloniea.     By  B.  Channing. 
*XI.  Hndlmantary  Soelaty  among  Boys.     By  J.  Hemslbt  Johnson. 

XII.  Land  Lawa  of  Mining  Diatrleta.     By  C.  H.  Shinn.     SO  cents. 

THIRD  SERIES.— 1885.— #4.00. 

I.  Maryland's  Influence  upon  Land  Cesaiona  to  the  IT.  S.    By  H.  B.  Adams.     75  eaata. 

Il-m.  Virginia  Loeal  Inititutlona.     By  B.  Inolb.     75  cents. 

IT.  Xeoant  American  Soeialiam.     By  Richabd  T.  Blt.     50  cents. 

T-TI-Vn.  Maryland  Local  Institutlona.     By  Lnwis  W.  Wu.hblm.     81.00. 

Till.  Influanoa  of  the  Fropriatora  in  Founding  Kew  Jeraey.     By  A.  Scott.     26  easts. 

IX-X.  Amerlean  Oonatltutlona.     By  Hobaci  Datis.     60  cents. 

Xl-xn.  The  City  of  Waahington.    By  J.  A.  Pobtkb.     60  cents. 

FOURTH  SERIES.— 1886.— $4.00. 
*L  Dmtoh  Tillage  Oommunitiea  on  the  Hndaon  RiTer.     By  I.  BiiTiiia. 
Il-m.  Town  OoTomment  in  Bhode  laland.     By  W.  B.  Fostsb. — The  Kamganaett  Plant 

era.     By  Bdwabd  Channing.     50  cents. 
IT.  PannaylTania  Borougha.     By  William  P.  Holcomb.     60  cents. 
T.  Intredmetion  to  Oonatitntlonal  History  of  the  States.     By  J.  F.  Jamison.     60  CMits 
TI.  The  Puritan  Colony  at  Annapolis,  Maryland.     By  D.  R.  Randall.     60  cents. 
m-Tm-IX.  The  Land  Queatlon  In  the  United  States.     By  8.  Sato.     $1.00. 
X.  Town  and  City  Oovernment  of  Kew  Haven.     By  C.  H.  LsTSBMOBn.     60  cents. 
Xl-Xn.  Land  System  of  the  Kew  England  Colonies.     By  M.  Bolbbton.     60  cents. 

FIFTH  SERIES.— 1887.— $4.00. 

I-n.  City  GoTemmant  of  Philadelphia.     By  B.  P.  Allinson  and  B.  Pbnbosb.     60  eeats 

m.  Citr  O-oTemment  of  Boston.    By  Jambs  U.  Bcgbeb.     25  cents. 

•IT.  City  OoTernmant  of  St.  Louia.     By  Maeshall  S.  Snow. 

T-TI.  Laaal  GoTamment  in  Canada.     By  John  Obokgb  Boubinot.    60  cents. 

Tn.  Xffaat  of  the  War  of  1812  upon  the  American  TTnion.     By  N.  M.  Butlbb.     26  eeata 

Tin.  Votaa  on  the  Literature  of  Charities.     By  Hebbebt  B.  Adams.     26  casts. 

IX.  Prediatieaa  of  Hamilton  and  Da  Tooqneville.     By  Jambs  Bbtcb.     26  eeata. 

X.  The  8tady  of  Hiatory  in  England  and  Scotland.     By  P.  Pbbdbbico.     25  eeata. 

XI.  leailnary  Llhrarles  and  TTnlTersity  Extension.     By  H.  B.  Adams.     25  cents. 
*xn.  European  Schools  of  History  and  Politics.     By  A.  D.  Whitb. 

SIXTH   SERIES.— 1888.— $4.00. 
The  Xiatery  ef  Oo-eperatlon  in  the  TTnitad  States. 


SEVENTH  SEKIES.— XU9. 

(Volame  sold  only  wltb  complete  act.) 

I.  Anald  Tojmbaa.    By  F.  C.  Montagcb.     50  cents. 

n-in.  Mmniolp&l  GoTarnment  in  San  Fruiolsoo.     By  Beknaju)  Mosbs.     &0  cent*. 

IT.  Manlelpal  Hlitory  of  K«w  Orleans.     By  Wh.  W.  Howb.     26  Mats. 

•y-TI.  SngUsh  Onltnre  In  Virginia.     By  William  P.  Tsbnt. 

▼XZ-TZXZ-ZX.  Ths  Mm  Towns  of  Conneoticat.     By  Chjlblbi  1L  AifDUwa.     fl.OO. 

*X-ZI-XZI.  7*d«ral    Ooverument    in    Canada.      By    John    G.    Bodkinot. 

EIGHTH   SERIES.— 1890. 

(Volume  sold  only  with  complete  set.) 

I-XZ.  Tbs  BsfflnniiHrs  of  American  Ifationality.     By  A.  W.  Sicalu     $1.00. 

nX.  Leoal  aoTommsnt  In  Wisconiln,      By  D.  B.  Spbncbb.     26  cents. 

*IT.  Ipaalsh  Colonization  in  the  Southwest.     By  F.  W.  Blackuas. 

▼-TI.  The  Study  of  History  in  Germany  and  France.     By  P.  Fbbdbxicq.     $1.00. 

TXZ-IX.  FroffTMS  of  the  Colored  People  of  MaryUuid.     By  J.  R.  Bbackstt.     fl.M. 

*X.  The    Stndy    of    History    in    Belrium    and    Holland.      By    P.    Fudikicq. 

XZ-XZX.  Seminary  Notes  on  Historical  Litsrature.    By  H.  B.  Adaus  and  other*.     60  cesta 

NINTH  SEKIES.— 1891. 

(Volume  sold  only  wltb  complete  set.) 

*Z-n.  OoTernment  of  the  ITnlted  States.    By  W.  W.  Willodohbt  and  W.  F.  Willotiqhbi 
m-IT.  TTnlTersity   Education    in    Haryland.      By    B.    C.    Stbinbk.      The   Johns   XepMM 

VuiTsrslty   (1876-1891).     By   D.   C.   Oilman.     60  cents. 
*T-TI.  Municipal  ITnity  in  the  Lombard  Communes.     By  W.  K.  W1U.IAU8. 
TXI-Tm.  Ptibllo  Lands  of  the  Koman  Bepubllo.     By  A.  RTHPHBNBOlt.     76  cents. 
*ZX.  CoBstltntional  Development  of  Japan.     By  T.  Itbmaoa. 
•X.  A  History  of  Liberia.     By  .1.  H.  T.  McPhekson. 
Xl-Xn.  The  Indian  Trade  in  Wisconsin.    By  F.  J.  Tornbb.     50  cents. 

TENTH  SERIES.— 1893.— 94.00. 
I.  The  Bishop  Hill  Colony.     Dy  Michael  A.  Mikkelbkn.     50  cents. 
IZ-ni.     Chnreh  and  State  In  Kew  England.     By  Paul  B.  Laobb.     60  cents. 
TT.  Chmreh  and  State  In  Maryland.     By  Georgb  Pbthir.     60  cents. 
T-TI.  XellffioBS  DsTslopment  of  North  Carolina.     By  8.  B.  Wbbkb.     60  cents. 
Tn.  ICaryland's  Attitude  in  the  Stru<Kls  for  Canada.     By  J.  W.  Black.     60  cemtB. 
TnX-IX.  The  Quakers  in  Pennsylvania.     By  A.  C.  Applboabth.     76  cents. 
Z-XI.  Columbus  and  his  Discovery  of  Amerlea.     Bv  H.  B.  Adams  and  H.  Woob.     60  eeats 
Xn.  Oauses  of  ths  Aaserioaa  Xevolution.     By  J.  A.  Woodbubk.    60  eenta. 

ELEVENTH  SERIES.— 1893.— 94.00. 

L  The  Sooial  Condition  of  Labor.     By  E.  R.  I..  Gould.     50  cents, 
n.  The  World's  Representative  Assemblies  of  To-Day.     By  B.  K.  Aldbn.     60  cents, 
m-rv.  The  Nepro  In  tha  District  of  Columbia.     By  Edwahd  Inolb.     $1.00. 
T-TI.  Churoh  and  State  in  North  Carolina.     By  Stbphbn  B.  Wbbks.     60  cents. 
TII-TIII.  The  Condition  of  the  Western  Farmer,  etc.     By  A.  F.  Bbntlbt.     fl.OO. 
IX-X.  History  of  Slavery  In  Conneotlout.    By  Bbhnard  C.  Stkinbb.     76  cents. 
Xl-Xn.  Loeal  (H>vemment  In  the  South.    By  B.  W.  Bbmis  and  others.     $1.00. 

TWELFTH   SERIES.— 1894.— 94.00. 

X-n.  The    Clnolnnatl    Southern    Hallway.     By    .T.    H.    Holijindbb.     $1.00. 

XXL  OsBstitntieBal  Berinnlnrs  of  North  Carolina.     By  J.  8.  Babsbtt.     80  esats. 

IT.  8^;ufffle  of  Dissenters  for  Toleration  In  Ylrgrlnia.     By  H.  R.  McIlwainb.     60  ceatB 

T-TI-TII.  The  Carolina  Pirates  and  Colonial  Commeree.     By  8.  C.  Huohsom.     $1.00. 

THZ-IX.  Bepresentatlon  and  Suffrage  in  Hasiachusetts.     By  G.  Q.  HATifBB.     60  esats. 

X.  Xsrlish  iBstltntlono  and  the  American  Indian.     By  J.  A.  jambb.     26  cents. 

Zl-Xn.  International  Beginningrs  of  the  Conro  Free  State.     By  J.  S.  Rbbvbb.     60  eeats 

THIRTEENTH  SERIES.— 1895.— 94.oo. 

I-ZZ.  (Joversment  of  the  Colony  of  South  Carolina.     By  B.  L.  Wuitnbz.     75  cents. 
nX-XT.  Early   Kelatlons   of   Haryland    and   Virgrlnia.     By   J.    H.    LatanS.     60   cents. 
T.  Ths  Bise  of  the  Bicameral  System  In  America.    By  T.  F.  Mokan.     60  cents. 
TZ-TXI.  White  Servitude  In  the  Colony  of  Virgrlnia.     By  J.  C.  Ballaqb.     60  cents. 
TXZX.  The  Genesis  of  California's  First  Constitution.     By  R.  D.  HcMT.     60  cents. 

IX.  BenJaatiB  Franklin  as  an  Economist.     By  W.  A.  Wbtzbi.     60  cents. 

X.  The  Previsional  Government  of  Maryland.     By  J.  A.  Silvbb.     60  cents. 

XZ-XZI.  Gevemment  and  Kellrlou  of  the  Tirrlnla  Indians.    By  8.  R.  HsNDBaic.    50  oeats 

FOURTEENTH  SERIES.— 1896.— 94.00. 

I.  Oeastltntional  History  of  Hawaii.     By  HnNBT  B.  Ciiambbxs.     25  cents. 
n.  City  Government  of  Baltimore.     By  T'iaddeus  P.  Thomas.     25  cents. 
XXX.  Oslenlal  Orlsrins  of  New  England  Senates.     By  F.  L.  Rilbt.     60  cents. 
IT-T.  Servitude  In  the  Colony  of  North  Carolina.     By  J.  8.  Bassbtt.     60  cents. 
TX-TXX.  Bepresentatlon  in  Virginia.     By  .T.  A.  C.  Chandlbi.     50  cents. 
TXXX.  History  of  Taxation  In  Conneotlsut  (1638-1776).       By  F.  R.  Jonbs.     60  cents. 
IX-X.  A  Study  of  Slavery  In  New  Jersey.     By  FTbnrt  S.  Coolbt.     60  cents. 
XX-XXZ.  Cansss  of  the  Maryland  Bevelutien  of  1680.     By  F.  B.  Spabkb.     50  cents. 


FIFTEENTH  SERIES.— 1897.— 5400. 

i-n.  The  Tobaoeo  Industry  In  Vlr^alu  ilnce  1880.     By  B.  W.  Arnold.     50  ccbU. 
XlX-y.  Btroat  Sallway  Bjstam  of  FblUdalpbla.     Bj  F.  W.  SraiBS.     75  Mats. 
▼X.  Daaial  KatsiobA.     By  C.   P.   Null.     60  cents. 

TIZ-yxn.  Ee«Bemlo  History  •{  B.  tc  0.  K.  S.     By  M.  Rkizbnbtiin.     50  e«itB. 
XX.  Tke  SoBth  Amsrlo&n  Tr&da  of  Baltimoro.     By  F.  R.  Rdttib.     50  c«Dta. 
X-ZZ.  State  Tax  Oommlssiont  In  tbe  United  Statea.     By  J.  W.  Chapm>n.     60  e«BtB. 
XZX.  Tradcnaiea  in  AmerieaB  Eeonomle  Thought.     By   8.  Shbbwood.     35  cuts. 

SIXTEENTH  SERIES.— i8g8.— $4.00. 

I-IT.  The  Neutrality  of  the  Amerloan  Lakei,  etc.    By  J.  M.  Callahan.    11.26.    Ooth,  f  l.A 

T.  Watt  Florida.     By  H.   E.  Chaubirs.     25  cents. 

TI.  Antl-Sle.Tery  Leaders  of  North  Carolina,     By  J.  S.  Bassxtt.     50  cents. 

VII-IX.  Li f e  » nd  Adniinlstratlon  of  Sir  Robert  Eden.     By  B.  C.  Stbinib.     $1.00. 

X-XX.  The  Transition  of  Korth  Carolina  from  a  Colony.     By  B).   W.   Sins.     50  csats 

XXX.  Jared  Sparks  and  AJaxis  Da  Too«naTlUa.    By  H.  B.  Adaus.    25  cents. 

SEVENTEENTH  SERIES.— 1899.— $4.00. 
I-n-ni.  History   of    Btate    Banking    in    MaryUnd.     By    A.    C.    Bbtam.     $1.00. 
IT-T.  The  KBOw-Kothinr  Farty  in  Maryland.    By  L.  F.  Schmscksbibb.    75  easts. 
TX.  The  lAhadlst  Colony  is  Maryland.    By  B.  B.  Jambs.     60  cents. 
TXX-TXIX.  History  ef  SlaTary  In  Korth  Carolina.    By  J.  8.  Babbbtt.     76  cents. 
ZX-X-XX.  DaTalopmant  of  the  Chesapeake  h  Ohio  Oanal.     By  O.  W.  Wabd.     75  easts. 
XXX.  Public  Educational  Work  In  Baltimore.    By  Qxsbbht  B.  Adaus.    26  cants. 

EIGHTEENTH  SERIES.— 1900.— $4.00. 

X-IT.  Studies  in  State  Taxatloa.    Edited  by  J.  H.  Hollandbk.     Paper,  $1.00;  cloth,  $l.St 
Y-VI.  The  Colaaial  ExacBtiTa  Prior  to  the  Xastoration.     By  P.  L.  Kats.     50  cants. 
YII.  Oonstitntlon  and  Admission  of  Iowa  into  the  TTnlon,     By  J.  A.  Jaubb.    80  easts. 
TXH-IX.  Tha  Churoh  and  Popular  Education.     Bt  H.  B.  Adaus.     60  cents. 
X-XXZ.  Xallrlous  Freedom  in  Yirrinia:  The  Baptists.     By  W.  T.  TnoM.     75  c«sits. 

NINETEENTH  SERIES.— 1901.— $4.00. 

Z-XXX.  Amarloa  in  tha  Faoiilo  and  tha  Far  East.    By  J.  M.  Callahan.     75  cantB. 

rr-T.  State  AatlTltlas  in  Relation  to  Xjihor.    By  w.  F.  Willodqhbt.    60  cents. 

▼X-TXX.  History  af  Snffrara  in  Virrlnia.    By  J.  A.  C.  Chamdlbb.     50  cents. 

TZXI-IX.  Tha  Marylaad  Constitution  of  1864.     By  W.  S.  Mtbbb.     50  cents. 

X.  Life  of  Commissary  James  Blair.     By  D.  E.  Motuet.     25  cents. 

XX-XXX.  Got.  Hiaka  of  Maryland  and  tha  Civil  War.    By  Q.  L.  llABCLirrs.     60  cants. 

TWENTIETH   SERIES.— 190a.— $4.00. 

I.  Western  Maryland  in  the  EoTolution.     By  B.  C.   Stbinbr.     80  cents. 

XX-XXX,  Btate  Banks  since  the  National  Bank  Aot.     By  O.  E.  Babnbtt.     50  cents. 

IT.  Early  History  of  Internal  ImproTements  in  Alabama.     By  W.  B.  If  abtin.     SO  aests 

*T-TI.  Trust  Companies  In  the  United  States.     By  George  Catoh. 

TXX-TXII.  Tha  Maryland  Constitution  of  1861.     By  J.  W.  Harrt.     60  cents. 

ZX-X.  Felltioal  ActiTlties  of  Philip  Freneau.     By  8.  E.  Forman.     60  cents. 

XZ.-XZX.  Continental  Opinion  on  a  Middle  European  Tariff  Union.    By  G.  M.  Fibk.    80  eta 

TWENTY-FIRST  SERIES.— 1903.— $4.00. 

*Z-XX.  Tha  Wabash  Trade  Koute.     By  E.   J.  Benton. 

ZZX-XV.  iBtemal  Improvemonts  in   North  Carolina.     By  C.   C.   Wbatbb.      50  eoits. 

T.  History  of  Japanese  Paper  Currency.     By  M.  Takaki,     30  cents. 

TX-TIX.  EcoBomles    and    Politics    in    Maryland,    1720-1760,    and    tha    Publle    Sarrtoss    af 

Banial  Dulany  the  Elder.     By  St.  G.  L.  Sioussat.     50  cents. 

•TXXI-IX-X.  BerlBBinr*  of  Maryland,    1681-1639.     By   B.   C.   Stbinsb. 
XI-XXI.  Tha  English  Statutes  in  Maryland.     By  St.  O.  L.  SionsBAT.     50  easts. 

TWENTY-SECOND  SERIES.— 1904.— $4-oo. 

Z-ZX.  A  Trial  BlbUography  of  American  Trade-Union  Publications.     50  cents. 

ZIZ-IV.  White  Serritu^  In  Maryland,  1634-1820.     By  E.  I.  McCobmac.     50  cents. 

y.  Bwitiarland  at  tha  Berinning  of  the  Sixteenth  Century,     By  J.  M.  Vincsnt.    80  easts. 

yX-yZZ-yzZZ.  The  History  of  Reconstruction  in  yirglnia.     By  H.  J.  Bcxbnbodb.    60  centB. 

IX-X.  The  Foreign  Commerce  of  Japan  since  the  Restoration.     By  Y.  Hattobl    50  cants. 

TT-^TTT.  Z>aseriptions  of  Maryland.     By  B.  C.  Rtbinbb.     50  ceuta. 

TWENTY-THIRD  SERIES.— 1905.— $400. 

Z-ZI.  Raeonstmction  in  South  Carolina.     Bt  J.  P.  H0LI.IB.     60  cents 

IlX-Xy,  State  Ooyerament  in  Maryland,  1777-1781.     By  B.  W.  Bond,  Jb.     60  casts. 

y-yx.  Colonial  Administration  under  Lord  Clarendon,  1660-1667.    By  P.  L.  Kats.    50  eta 

yiX-yXIX.  Jnstioa  1b  Colonial  Virginia.     By  O.  P.  Chitwood.     60  cents. 

XX-X.  Tha  Napolaanie  Exiles  In  America,  1816-1819.    By  J.  S.  Rbbtbb.     60  cants. 

XX-XXX.  Mnaialpal  Prablams  in  MadiaaTal  Switxerland.    By  ;.  M.  Vincbnt.  60  cents. 


TWENTY-FOURTH  SERIES.— 1906.— f 400. 

I-ZL  BpuUb-AmariOAB  Diplomatle  KaUtlons  before  IMS.     By   U.  U.  i<*i^CK.     60  eeata 

in  IV.  The  Flnaaoea  of  Ameriean  Trade  Unions.     By  A.  M.  Sakolski.    75  cents. 

▼-▼1.  DlplomAtle  Nefotlatloni  ef  the  TXnlted  SUtea  with  XutiU.    By  J.  C.  Hiu>T.    »0  eta. 

vn-Vnir  state  airhta  and  Parties  in  North  Carolina,  1776-H81.  By  H.  M.  Wagstakf.  ftOe. 
IX-X.  National  Labor  Federations  in  the  United  States.  By  William  Kikk.  76  cents. 
ri  Xll.  Maryland  Durlnj  the  English  CItI'  "Wars.     Part  I.     By  B.  C.  Stbinbk.     50  ceata. 

TWENTY-FIFTH   SERIES.— 1907.— #4.00. 

I.  Internal  Taxation  in  the  Philippines.     By  John  8.  Hohd.     80  cent*. 
U-in.  The  Monroe  Mission  to  France,  1794-1796.     By  B.  W.  Bond,  Jr.     50  cents. 
nr-V.  Maryland  During  the  English  Civil  Wars,  Part  II.     By  Bbbnabo  C.  Stwnbi.     60*. 
Vl-vn.  The  State  In  Constitutional  and  International  Law.     By  R.  T.  Cbamb.     60  ceata. 
▼ni-IX-X.  Financial  History  of  Maryland,   1789-184S.     By  Hugh   S.  Hanna.     7B  eenta. 
TTI-XTI,  Apprenticeship  In  American  Trade  Unions.     By  J.  M.   Motlkt.     50  cents. 

TWENTY-SIXTH  SERIES.— 1908.— ^4.00. 

I^IX.  British   Committees,   Commissions,   and   Coanclii  of  Trade  and  Plantations.   MM- 

1676.     By  C.  M.  Andbbws.     75  cents. 
nr-VI.  Neutral  Sights  and   Obligations  In  the  Anglo-Boer  War.     By    R.   O.   (?AUPBaLi> 

75  cents. 

Tll-vm.  The  Elizabethan  Parish  In  lU  Ecclesiastical  and  Financial  Aspeots.     By  8.  L. 

WA£ii.     50  cents. 
IX-X.  A  Study  of  the  Topography  and  Municipal  History  of  Praeneste.     By   R.   V.   D. 

MAGorFiN.     HO  cents.  .     ^  .  „      ,  ^ 

*ZI-XII.  Beneficiary  Features  of  American  Trade  Unions.     By  j.  B.  Kennedy. 

TWENTY-SEVENTH    SERIES.— 1909.— 14.00. 

I  II.  The  Self-Beconstruotion  of  MaryUnd,  1864-1867.     By   W.  S.  Mtbbs.     60  cents. 
UI-IT-T.  The    Development    of    the    English    Law    of    Oonsplraoy.     By    J.    W.    Bxtab 

76  cents. 

▼X-TXX.  LeglslatiTe    and    Judicial    History    of    the    Fifteenth    Amendment.      By    J.     U. 

Mathmwh.      75  cents;  cloth  $1. 
vnX-XII.  England  and  the  French  Revolution,   1789-17S7.     By   W.  T.   Lapeadb.     91 

TWENTY-EIGHTH  SERIES.— 1910.— ^4.00. 
(Complete  in  four  numbers.) 

L  History  of  Keeonstruetlon   In   Louisiana    (Through   1868).      By  J    R.  Ficklbm.      81.00, 

XX.  The  Trade  Union  Label.      Bv  E.  R.  Spkddk.v       5<t  cents  ;  cloth  75  cents. 

m.  The   Doctrine   of  Non-Suability  of  the  Stev«  In   the   United   States.     By   K.   SiM«» 

WALD.     50  cents ;  cloth  75  cents. 
IT.  David  Hleardo:  A  Centenary  Estimate.      By  J.  H.  H01J.ANDBK.     91. OO;  clotb  $7  26 

TWENTY-NINTH    SERIES.— 191 1.— $400. 
(Complete  In  three  numbers.) 

I.  Maryland  Under  the  Commonwealth:  A  Chronicle  of  the  years  ie4»-1«68  By  B.  C 
Stbinbb.     $1 ;  cloth   $1.25.  .    „_ 

n.  The  Dutch  Republic  and  the  Ameriean  Revolution.  By  FuiEDKrcH  (Cdlbs  tl.SO: 
cloth  $1.75. 

•m.  The  01os*d  Shop  in  American  Trade  Unions.     By  P.  T.  Stockton. 

THIRTIETH  SERIES.— 191 2.— $4.00. 
(Complete  in   three  numbers.) 
L  HMsnt  Admlnlstratlen  in  Virginia.     By  F.  A.  Maobodbb.     11.25;  cloth  91.60. 
n.  The    Standard   Sate   in    Ameriea    Trade   Unions.     By    D.    A.    McCabb.     91.26;    dad 

91.60. 
m.  Admission  to  American  Trade  Unions.     By  F.  E.  Wolfe.     91.00. 


THIRTY-FIRST  SERIES.— 1913.— $4.00. 
(CompleU  In  four  numben.) 

L.  Tk»  LkMt  IrttMi  U  lUryUad,  172fr-1786.     By  Claumcb  P.  Oouut.     7B  e«atB :  «l«tk 

fl.OO. 
ri.  Tka  ftoTanimeat  cf  AaarlMii  Trade  TTniont.     B7  T.  W.  Glockbb.     $1.00 ;  cloth  Sl.SI. 
in.  Th«  Tr—  Vtcre  in  YlrfflBU,   1610-18S6.      By   J.   H.   Rdsmlu      $1.00;   cloth    %l.». 
rr.  Tko  •aiatBonnalM :  An  Xlitoriaal  St««y.     By  R.  V.  D.  UAtKtmn.     BO  ewta;  ei««k 

TB  ccati 

THIRTY-SECOND    SERIES.— i9i4.—«4.oo. 

(Complete  to  three  Dumber*.) 

«.  Jurladtetlon    In     American    BnlldinK-Tradei    TTnlon*.     By     N.    B.     Whitmbt.     11.00; 

rioth  fl.2fi. 
ri.  OUvery  in  Kiiionrl,  1I04-1S66.     By  H.  A.  Tbbxlbb.     |1.25;  cloth  fl.BO. 
!2Z    Oolonlal  Trade  ef  KaryUnd.     By  M.  S.  Mosbiss.     fl.OO;  cloth  11.26. 

THIRTY-THIRD  SERIES.— 191 5.— $4.00. 

(Complete   In   four  numbers.) 

L  Meney    and    Traneportatien    In    Maryland,    1780-1766,     By    Cla^kbnc*    P.    Gouij>.     TB 

cents:  cloth  |1.00. 
n.  The  rinanelal  Admlnlitratlon  of  the  Colony  of  Tlrrinla.     By  Pascx  Scott  Pi.imi«. 
60  cents;  cloth  76  cents. 

III.  The   Helper   and   Aaerlean    Trade   ITnioni.      By    John    H.    Ashwobth.     76    c«Bta; 
cloth  11.00. 

IV.  The  Oonstitvtlonal  Dootrlnes  of  7astioe  Harlan.     By  Flotd  Bauilia  CXjlMB..     11.00; 
cloth   tl.36. 

THIRTY-FOURTH   SERIES.— 1916.— $4.00. 

(Complete  In  four  numbers.) 

I.  The  Boyeott  In  American  Trade  TTnions.     By  Leo  Wolman.     fl.OO;  cloth,  fl.25. 

II.  The  Postal  Power  of  Congress.     By   Lind8.\t   Rogers.     fl.OO ;   cloth,  fl.25. 

III.  The   Control  of  Strikes  In   American   Trade  TTnions.     By   6.    M.   Jakbs.     75   cents : 

cloth,  fl.OO. 
IT.  State  Administration  in  Maryland.     By  John  L.  Donaij>son.     fl.OO;  cloth  fl.25. 

THIRTY-FIFTH  SERIES.— 1917.— $4.00. 

(Complete  In  three  numbers.) 

I.  The   Vlrglaia   Committee   System   and   the   American   Kevolntion.     By   J.    U.    Lbasb. 

fl.OO;   cloth   fl.26. 
n.  The  Orfanliability  of  Labor.     By  W.  O.  Wbtfobth.     f  1.50 . 

in.  Party  Orranisation  and  Machinery  in  Michi^n  since  1890.     By  A.  C.  Miu^pauoh. 
fl.OO ;  cloth  fl.25. 

THIRTY-SIXTH  SERIES.— i9i8.—$400. 
(Complete  In  four  numbers.) 
X.  The  Standard  of  Living  in  Japan.     By  K.  Morimoto.     fl.25. 
n.  Sumptnary   Law   in   NHmberg.     By    K.    R.    Grbenfibld.     fl.25;    cloth    fl.60. 
m.  The    FriTileges    and    Immunities    of    State    Citizenship.     By    R.    Howilu     flOO; 

cloth  fl.25. 
XT.  French  Protestantism,   1669-1662.     By   C.   G.    Kbllt.     fl.25;    cloth   fl.SO. 

THIRTY-SEVENTH   SERIES— i9i9—$4-25-  v 

I.  Unemployment  and  American  Trade  TTnions.     By  D.  P.  Smelsbb,  Jb.     fl.25. 

II.  The  Labor  Law  of  Maryland.     By  M.  H.  I>auchheimbb.     fl.25  :  cloth  f  1.50. 

III.  The  American  Colonization  Society  1817-1840.     E.  L.  Fox.     f  2.00 ;  cloth  f2.26. 

IV.  The  Obligation  of  Contracts   Clause  of  the  TTnited  States   Constitution.     By   W.   B. 
Hunting.     fl.OO;  cloth  fl.25. 

THIRTY-EIGHTH  SERIES.— 1920.— $4.25. 

I.  The  TTnited  States  Department  of  Agriculture.     By  W.   L.   Wanlass.     fl.25 ;   cloth, 

fl.75. 

II.  The  Amalgamated  Association  of  Iron,  Steel  and  Tin  Workers.     By  J.  S.  Robinson. 

$1.50;  cloth,   f2.00. 
in.  The   Employment   of   the   Plebiscite   in   the   Determination   of   Sovereignty.     By    J. 
Matctbn.     fl.50. 

THIRTY-NINTH   SERIES.— 1921.-^5.75. 

I.  The  Capitalization  of  Goodwill.     By  Kemper  Simpsox.     fl.OO. 

n.  The  Else  of  the  Cotton  Mills  in  the  South.     By  Broadus  Mitchbu*     f2.50. 

III.  The    International    Molders'    Union    of    North    America.     By    Frank    T.    Stockton. 
fl.50. 

The  set  of  thirty-nine  series  of  Studies  is  offered,  uniformly  bound  in  cloth,  for  library 

use  for  f  Ifio.O'J  net.     The  .separate  volumes  may  also  be  had  bound  In 

cloth   at  the  prices  stated. 

xii 


IN 

Historical  and  Political  Science 

Those  marked  with  an  asterisk   (•)   are  out  of  Prlnt. 
•1.  The  Eepubllc  of  JXbw  Haven.    By  Chakles  H.  Lbvebmobb.  842  pages. 
n.  Philadelphia,  1681-1887.    By  Edward  P.  Allison,  A.M..  and  Boms  Phn- 
EOSB,  A.B.    444  pages.    8vo.    Cloth.    $3.00. 
•m.  Baltimore   and    the   Nineteenth    of    April,    1861.      By    Gbobqh    Wiixiam 
Brown.    176  pages. 
IV.  Local  Oonatitutional  HUtory  of  the  United  States.    By  Gboeob  B.  Howard. 
Ph.D.— Volume  I— Development  of  the  Township,  Hundred  and  Shire. 

Yt  ThS^Ke^f  tn  ulrrl.T\y'fZn.r  R.  Beack^tt,  Ph.D.     270  pages. 
8vo.     Cloth.     $2.00. 
Vn.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.    By  W.  W.  Willodqhbt,  Ph.D. 

124  pages.     8to.     Cloth.     $1.25. 
Vin.  The  Intercourse  between  the  V.  B.  and  Japan,    By  Inazo  (Ota)  Nitobb, 

Ph.D.     198  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.     $1.25. 
•IX.  State  and  Federal  Government  In  Switzerland.    By  John  Martin  Vincbnt, 
250  pages. 
X.  Spanlih  Institutions  of  the  Southwest.     By  Fkank  W.  Blackmab,  Ph.D. 

380   pages.      8vo.      Cloth.      $2.00. 
XI.  An  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  th«  Constitution.    By  Moebis  M.  Cohn. 

250  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.     $1.50. 
Xn.  The  Old  EngUsh  Kanor.     By  C.  M.  Andbbws,  Ph.D.     280  pages.     8to. 
Cloth,  $1.50.  „     _ 

•XIII.  America:   Its  Geographical  History.   1««-1898.     By  Waltbb  B.  Scaii* 

176  pages. 
•XIV.  Florentine  Life  During  the  Kenalsoanoe.    By  Waltbb  B.  Scaifh. 
•XV.  The  Southern  Uuakers  and  Slavery.    By  Stbphbn  B.  Webkb,  Ph.D.     414 
pages. 
*XVI.  Contemporary   American   Opinion  of   the  French  Xevolutlon.     By  C.   D. 

Hazbn,  Ph.D.     325  pages. 
XVn.  Industrial  Experiments  In  the  British  Colonies  of  Korth  America.     By 

Elbanoh  L.  Lord.     164  pages.    8vo.    Cloth.     $1.25. 
XVIII.  State  Aid  to  Higher  Education:  A  Series  of  Addresses  at  the  Johns  Hop- 
kins University.     100  pages.     8vo.    Cloth.     $1.60. 
XIX.  Irrigation  In  Utah.    By  C.  H.  Bbouoh.    228  pages. 
XX.  Financial  History  of  Baltimore.    By  J.  H.  Hollandbb,  Ph.D.    400  pages. 

8vo.     Cloth.     $2.00. 
XXI.  Cuba  and  International  Eolations.    By  J.  M.  Callahan.    BOB  pages.    8vo. 

Cloth.     $3.00. 
XXII.  The  American  "Workman.     By  B.  Lbvassbdb   (translation).     540  pages. 

8vo.     Cloth.     $3.00. 
XXm.  Herbert  B.  Adams.     A  Memorial  Volume.     232  pages.     Svo.     Cloth.  81. 00 
XXIV.  A  History  of  Slavery  In  Virginia.    By  J.  C.  Ballaoh.     160  pages.     8va 

Cloth.     $1.60. 
XXV.  The  Finances  and  Administration  of  Providence,  1686-1901.     By  Howabs 

K.  Stokbs.    474  pages.    8vo.    Cloth.    $3.50. 
XXVI.  The   Adoption   of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.     By   Hobacb   B.   Flack. 
286  pages.     Svo.     Cloth.     $2.00. 

NEW   SERIES. 
L  Ths   Bevlslon   and    Amendment   of    State    OcnstltBtlons.    W.   F.    Don* 
868  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.     |2.C0. 


PUBLISHED  MAY  i,  1922 


CHINA  AT  THE   CONFERENCE 

BY 

W.  W.  WILLOUGHBY 

Professor   of   Political'   Science  at  The  Johns   Hopkins  University;    formerly 

Legal  Adviser  to  the  Chinese  Republic ;  Technical  Expert  to  the  Chinese 

Delegation  to  the  Conference  on  Limitation  of  Armament  at 

Washington,  D,   C. ;   author  of  "Foreign   Rights   and 

Interests  in  China." 


Octavo  435  pages  Price,  $3.00 


This  volume,  in  the  form  of  a  semi-official  report,  will  take  its  place 
alongside  the  author's  well-known  work,  "  Foreign  Rights  and  Interests 
in  China,"  and  will  give  the  reader  an  accurate  statement  of  the  results 
of  the  recent  Conference  at  Washington. 

Besides  chapters  explaining  the  reasons  for  the  discussion  by  the 
Powers  of  the  political  and  international  situation  in  the  Far  East, 
describing  the  organization  and  procedure  of  the  Conference,  and  esti- 
mating its  results,  there  are  chapters  dealing  severally  with  each  of  the 
important  subjects  discussed  in  the  Conference  and  regarding  which 
Treaties  or  Resolutions  were  adopted.  In  an  Appendix  the  texts  are 
given  of  these  important  documents. 

Inasmuch  as,  with  the  exception  of  a  part  of  a  single  session  which 
was  devoted  to  the  situation  in  Siberia,  the  entire  work  of  the  Confer- 
ence, so  far  as  it  dealt  with  political  questions  in  the  Pacific  and  Far 
East,  was  concerned  with  the  affairs  of  China,  the  present  volume  gives, 
in  effect,  a  comprehensive  account  of  the  work  of  that  Conference.  In 
order  that  it  may  be  quite  complete  in  this  respect  there  is  given  in  the 
Appendix  the  statements  made — ^there  were  no  discussions — with  refer- 
ence to  the  Siberian  situation. 

THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS, 

Baltimore,  Maryland,  U.  S.  A. 


C.'j.     I   J 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


50di-5,'64  ( E647488 )  9482 


